CHOICE CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the same in both these cases. Ext.P4 order passed by the concerned authority in respect the Audit assessment finalized under Section 24(1) of the KVAT Act for the assessment year 2009-2010 is under challenge in W.P.(C) No.20033/2012; while the penalty imposed under Section 67(1) (d) vide Ext.P4 for the same assessment year is under challenge in W.P.(C) No.20034/2012.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that many a ground has been raised in this writ petition, particularly, showing the unsustainability of the impugned orders and hence seeks for interference of this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, the petitioner is having an effective alternate remedy by way of appeal before the concerned authority, as provided under the relevant provisions of law. This being the position, this Court does not propose to do the exercise, which is to be done by the appellate authority, at the first instance. In the said circumstance, the petitioner is relegated to avail the statutory remedy. So as to enable the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in this regard, the demand notice issued shall be kept in abeyance for a period of 'one' month.