INDO-AMERICAN ELECTRICALS LTD Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a public limited company dealing in super enamelled copper winding wire. It is registered under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The assessment years in question are 1990 -91 and 1991 -92. The assessment orders initially passed against the petitioner -company were revised by the respondent as per exhibits P6 and P7 orders of assessments for the aforesaid years. The petitioner has originally filed this writ petition challenging those assessment orders. Since an effective alternate remedy is available against those assessment orders, the challenge against those assessment orders cannot be accepted by this Court. When this Court expressed the aforesaid view, the assessee has filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Ernakulam who is the appellate authority in the present case. When this writ petition came up for consideration today, the counsel for the assessee brought to my notice that the appeals and stay applications are pending before the appellate authority. By C.M.P. No. 19976 of 1994 the petitioner sought to receive the exhibits P8 to P13 filed along with the said petition. The above C.M.P. has been allowed today. Exhibits P8 and P9 are the copies of the appeals filed before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Ernakulam. He has also moved exhibits P12 and P13 stay applications before the Deputy Commissioner seeking stay of collection of tax due under exhibits P6 and P7 revised assessment orders. However it is seen that there is a delay of two days in filing the appeals before the appellate authority. Exhibits P11 and P12 are the copies of the petitions for condonation of aforesaid delay filed before the Deputy Commissioner.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Government Pleader.

(3.) LEARNED counsel submits, in view of the decision of this Court in Sales Tax Officer v. Ragam Plastics [1990] 77 STC 313, the enhanced rate of tax is not liable to be levied in the case of the petitioner. Of course, this contention is liable to be examined by the appellate authority in the appeals. Since the petitioner has got a prima facie case I feel that the collection of tax in the case of the petitioner can be deferred till the disposal of the appeals. Therefore, I direct the respondent not to initiate steps of recovery of tax amount against the petitioner -company pursuant to exhibits P6 and P7 revised assessments till the appeals are disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as directed above. A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Ernakulam, for necessary action. The O.P. is disposed of as above. Petition disposed of accordingly.