IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 26932 of 2010(N) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- BPL TELECOM PVT. LTD, SYSTEM HOUSE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY,MR.D.KRISHNAN. BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.RAJA KANNAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (TAXES), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR, SPECIAL CIRCLE I, PALAKKAD - 678 001. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONR OF COMMERCIAL, TAXES (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM,PERUMANOOR P.O., KOCHI - 15. 4. INSEPCTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD - 678001. 5. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. * ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 24/09/2010 IN I.A. 13013/2010 R1 TO R5 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 26932 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenge in this Writ Petition is against Ext.P18 appellate order and Ext.P19 demand notice. Through Ext.P18 common order issued by the 3rd respondent, the appeals filed against the assessment orders for the years 2005-06 to 2008-09 were dismissed. Grievance voiced by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that, even before expiry of the statutory limit for preferring second appeal against Ext.P18, steps for realizing the amount of tax was initiated, on issuing Ext.P19 notice, despite the fact that the petitioner had already paid 25% of the total amounts due. 2. When the above Writ Petition came up for consideration on 30.08.2010, this Court directed the respondents to keep in abeyance all further steps for recovery. The interim order was thereafter extended periodically. Now petitioner had produced Exts.P21 to 2 WP(C) No. 26932/2010 P24, which are second appeals filed before the additional 5th respondent Tribunal. Exts.P25 to P28 are the stay petitions filed along with the appeals. Since the petitioner had already approached the Tribunal, I am not proposing to entertain this Writ Petition for adjudicating the merits of Ext.P18. The Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the 5th respondent Tribunal to consider and dispose of the interim applications filed along with the appeals. 3. Under the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 5th respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P25 to Ext.P28 stay petitions filed along with the appeals, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. Till such time orders are passed by the 5th respondent Tribunal, recovery of the balance amount under the assessments in dispute shall be kept in abeyance. 3 WP(C) No. 26932/2010 However it is made clear that the prohibitory order issued with respect to Bank transaction will continue, but the amount need not be transmitted by the Bank to the authority concerned. 5. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 5th respondent. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc