IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 8TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26035 of 2011(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S. GURUDEVAN ENTERPRISES, 1/113 KACHERIMEDU, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY A.MURUGADAS, MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CHITTUR, PIN-678 101. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 013. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.26035/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 03/06/2011. P2 COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 06/09/2011. P3 COPY OF THE DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 06/09/2011. P4 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 06/09/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.26035 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 application to condone delay and Ext.P4 stay petition. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that before the appellate authority could consider the interim applications, the 1st respondent has initiated recovery proceedings for recovery of the tax disputed in the appeal. The petitioner submits that it is unjust to enforce the recovery proceedings before the appellate authority could consider the interim applications. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. I am also of opinion that before the appellate authority could consider the interim applications, it is unjust to initiate coercive recovery proceedings. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The 2nd respondent appellate authority shall consider W.P.(C)No.26035/11 2 Exts.P3 and P4 applications together. If the appellate authority is inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal, the orders shall also be passed on Ext.P4 stay petition. This shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till then, coercive recovery proceedings for recovery of the tax disputed in the appeal shall be kept in abeyance. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.26035/11 3