JUDGMENT The petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. For the year 2010-11, the petitioner wanted to avail of the benefit of compounding of tax. The petitioner submitted Ext. P1 application for permission to opt for payment of tax at the compounded rates under Section 8. By Ext. P3 notice, the 1st respondent informed the petitioner as follows : "Please take notice that the compounding petition filed by you for the year 2010-11 is proposed to be rejected because the petition was filed on 17.08.2010 after the lapse of stipulated time for compounding. This office had sought the condonation of the deputy Commissioner, Malappuram in this case. But the Deputy Commissioner, Malappuram has informed that the Deputy commissioner is empowered for condonation only for the year 2008-09. In the circumstances the compounding petition filed by the dealer is not entertainable." The petitioner is challenging the same. The contention of the petitioner is that there is no point in responding to Ext. P3 notice before the 1st respondent because he has already stated that the Deputy Commissioner, Malappuram, has refused to condone the delay in filing the application for compounding. Therefore, whatever the petitioner says at the time of hearing, it would be of no use since the 1st respondent cannot do anything contrary to the direction of the Deputy Commissioner. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. I find merit in the contention of the petitioner in view of the statements in Ext. P3 notice. The 1st respondent has clearly stated in Ext. P3 notice that the 1st respondent has sought orders of condonation from the Deputy Commissioner, Malappuram, which has been rejected. That being so, the hearing of the petitioner by the 1st respondent would be an exercise in futility. Therefore, I am of opinion that the 2nd respondent should consider the claim of the petitioner for compounding and the claim of condonation of delay in applying for the same, after taking into account the contentions of the petitioner. Accordingly, I direct the 2nd respondent to hear the petitioner pursuant to Ext. P3 notice including on the claim of the petitioner for condonation of delay and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. P3 notice including on the claim of the petitioner for condonation of delay and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Till orders are thus passed, the interim orders passed by this Court will continue to be in force. The writ petition is disposed of as above.