JUDGMENT Petitioner is a corporation fully owned by the State Government. Assessments under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act) with respect to the years 2006-07 and 2007-08 were finalised against the petitioner, as per Exts. P6 and P7. Statutory appeals filed against those assessments as per Exts. P8 and P9 are pending consideration and disposal before the appellate authority, the 2nd respondent herein. Exts. P8A and P9A are the stay petitions filed along with the appeals. Through Ext. P10, the 2nd respondent had granted interim stay against collection of the amounts covered under the impugned assessments, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting 50% of the balance amount and on furnishing adequate security for the remaining amount. According to the petitioner, the goods were sold at subsidised rates in view of grant alloted by the State Government with the objective of 'market intervention'. Under such circumstances the claim for input tax had exceeded the amount of output tax. But the assessing authority had proposed assessment of the differential amounts by rejecting such claims, without taking note of the reasons as stated above. Therefore, it is contended that the assessment finalised is unsustainable. It is further stated that, through Ext. P11 representation the petitioner had sought directions from the Government to allow input tax credit, in excess of the output tax paid with respect to the previous years, and also to direct refund of the excess amounts paid in this regard. It is alleged that, in spite of such representation made as early as in December 2010, no decision is taken so far. According to the petitioner if the refund as claimed is allowed, there may not be any liability arising out of Exts. P6 and P7 assessments. Considering the fact that the statutory appeals are pending disposal before the 2nd respondent, I am of the view that it may not be proper and justified on the part of this Court to enter upon any findings regarding merits of the contentions. Ends of justice will be achieved if a direction is issued to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeals on an early basis and to restrain the recovery steps till then, considering the fact that the petitioner is a Government Corporation and they have raised claim for refund of the considerable amounts. Ends of justice will be achieved if a direction is issued to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeals on an early basis and to restrain the recovery steps till then, considering the fact that the petitioner is a Government Corporation and they have raised claim for refund of the considerable amounts. So also, I am of the view that interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the 5th respondent to consider and take a decision on the claim for refund made by the petitioner under Ext. P11. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext. P10 order. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider and dispose of Exts. P8 and P9 appeals after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 5th respondent is directed to consider and take appropriate steps on the basis of Ext. P11 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time the appeals are disposed of as directed above, recovery of amounts covered under Exts. P6 and P7 shall be kept in abeyance, subject to condition of the petitioner furnishing Security Bond for the entire balance. Needless to say that the attachment of Bank account operation if any effected shall be released till the disposal of the appeal.