PANASONIC INDIA (P) LTD Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petition has been filed challenging the revenue recovery notices Ext.P7 and P8. The said revenue recovery notices sought to recover the amounts due as per the assessment made by the first respondent by Ext.P1 and P2. The assessments made as per Ext.P1 and P2 related to the assessment year 2010-11 under the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act, 2003 and Central Sales Tax Act respectively. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has filed Ext.P3 and P4 appeals accompanied by Ext.P5 and P6 interlocutory applications for stay. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the non-consideration of the interlocutory applications filed in the first appeal and the proceedings for recovery taken thereon.

(2.) THE major controversy seems to be with respect to the 'C' Forms produced by the petitioner, which has been rejected by the Assessing Officer on the ground that, there is absolutely no proof for the transport of goods through the check post . It is the contention of the petitioner that, the lorry receipts with respect to each and every transport has been produced before the Assessing Officer and the same has been given a complete go by.