IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9258 of 2010(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.M.MATHEW, KUZHUVOMMANNIL INDUSTRIES, KURAVANKUZHI P.O., PULLAD, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DT. BY ADV. SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, (APPEALS), KOLLAM. 3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER - (AA), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (AA), COMMERCIAL TAXES, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 9258 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 6th April , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitiioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Exts. P2 and P3 recovery proceedings stating that the steps are still to be finalised as directed vide Ext. P5 judgment. It is stated that the grievance of the petitioner will stand redressed, once necessary clarifications are given by the Commissioner of Commercial taxes or suh other appropriate authorities, before whom the matter is pending. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who asserts with reference to the statement filed, that the factual averments raised from the part of the petitioner are not correct or sustainable . 3. However, on going through the records, this Court finds that already a direction has been issued vide Ext.P5 judgment, directing the third respondent therein (Commissioner of W.P.(C) No. 9258 OF 2010 2 Commercial Taxes/first respondent herein) to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 petition filed therein seeking for clarification, within a specified time and till such proceedings were finalised, the steps for recovery were ordered to be stayed for a period of two months. There is no case for the respondents that the concerned respondent has complied with the direction given by this Court vide Ext. P5 judgment, giving necessay clarifications. 4. The case now projected from the part of the third respondent is that (as revealed from para 12 of the statement), filing a petition under Section 94 of the KVAT Act will not in any way help the petitioner. This Court does not propose to go into the merits or demerits, as to the factual position involved. Taking note of the mandate given by this Court vide Ext.P5, the first respondent shall cause the matter to be finalised giving effect to the verdict as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 'six' weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The second respondent is directed to consider and finalise the appeal, the I.A. preferred for stay and also the I.A, to condone W.P.(C) No. 9258 OF 2010 3 the delay, if any, in accordance with law and also with reference to the order to be passed by the Commissioner or such other authority before whom, the petition for clarification is pending. The proceedings as above shall be finalised within one month from the date of finalisation of the proceedings by the Commissioner giving necessary clarification. All coercive steps stated as being pursued shall be kept in abeyance in the meanwhile. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk