IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2010 / 2ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38263 of 2010(G) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- UNIQUE TREAD, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, KOCHUVELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER LEN PHILIP. BY ADVS. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM), SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN, SMT.K.UMA MAHESWAR. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 3RD CIRCLE, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 605 005. 2. KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ,SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 605 010. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA,SIB BRANCH, OCSC BUILDING, GAS HOUSE JN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 38263 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 order of assessment, which is confirmed by the First Appellate Authority through Ext.P2, the petitioner preferred further appeal before the 2nd respondent Tribunal, as evidenced from Ext.P3. Along with the appeal the petitioner had preferred Exts.P4 and P5 applications seeking stay as well as early hearing of the appeal. According to the petitioner, appeal and the accompanying applications are pending consideration and disposal before the Tribunal. Grievance of the petitioner is that, without considering pendency of the appeal, coercive steps has now been initiated, on the basis of Exts.P6 and P7 notices issued. It is pointed out that through Ext.P6 steps had already been initiated to recover the amount by issuing prohibitory order against the Bank. Under such circumstances the petitioner is seeking interference of this court to restrain recovery steps till the appeal is disposed of. 2. Heard, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf WP(C).38263/2010 2 of the respondents. Considering pendency of the matter before the statutory Tribunal, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing that authority to take appropriate steps. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent Tribunal to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 stay petition filed along with the appeal, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment . 4. Till such time orders are passed by the 2nd respondent Tribunal as directed above, recovery of amounts covered under Ext.P1, which is confirmed under Ext.P2, shall be kept in abeyance. Needless to say that prohibitory orders if any issued restraining operations in the Bank account shall be treated as withdrawn . 5. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).38263/2010 3