IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2011 / 21ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18669 of 2011(G) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- DENCY JOHN, THOPPIL HOUSE, OLIVUMALA, CHUNDALE, WYNAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, V.A.T. CIRCLE, KALPETTA, WYNAD. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), VYTHIRI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 18669/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 17/01/2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1B-94/2009-10 DATED 17/06/2010. P3: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED U/S 55 OF THE KVAT ACT AGAINST EXT.P1 ORDER. P4: COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 13/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC. NO.6217/2011. P6: COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY FILED ALONG WITH EXT.P3. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 18669 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 12th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T Against Ext. P1 order of assessment, the petitioner has filed Ext. P3 appeal under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. Along with the same, the petitioner has filed Ext. P6 application for stay. The petitioner is aggrieved by the revenue recovery proceedings initiated for recovery of the disputed tax while the appeal and stay petition are pending. According to the petitioner, it is unjust to initiate revenue recovery proceedings before the appellate authority considers the stay petition. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. I am of opinion that the initiation of revenue recovery proceedings before the appellate authority considers the stay application is unreasonable.. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that to the 2nd respondent-appellate authority to consider and pass orders on Ext. P6 stay petition as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till orders are passed on Ext. P6 stay petition, proceedings for recovery of the disputed tax including revenue recovery proceedings as per Ext. P1 order shall be kept in abeyance. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/