IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 25TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 24822 of 2011(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- T.G.SURESH, SREE NARAYANA WOOD INDUSTRIES, VALAYANCHIRANGARA, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.SUBHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (DEPUTATION), COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE, II CIRCLE, PERUMBAVOOR-683 542. 2. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682 011. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jj K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO:24822 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th September, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P3 demand notice issued under Section 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 seeking to recover arrears of tax due under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. According to the petitioner, the assessment for the year 2005-2006 under the CST Act was completed by the first respondent without taking into account the C forms submitted by him. Therefore, he has challenged the assessment order Ext.P1 by filing an appeal against the same before the third respondent. He has already filed Ext.P2 application for stay, along with his appeal. Though no orders have been passed either on his appeal or the stay petition, the petitioner complains that Ext.P3 proceedings have been initiated for recovery of the disputed tax taking resort to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. Therefore, he prays for issue of an order of stay of further coercive action. 2. The learned Govt. Pleader points out that a copy of the appeal has not been produced by the petitioner and therefore, it is WPC 24822/2011 2 not clear whether a proper appeal has been filed and is pending consideration before the third respondent. He has no objection to the stay petition being directed to be disposed of, if a proper appeal is pending. 3. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the third respondent to consider the application for stay submitted by the petitioner evidenced herein by Ext.P3, if a proper appeal filed by him is pending, and to pass final orders thereon, expeditiously. Until final disposal of Ext.P3 all further action based on or pursuant to Ext.P3 shall remain stayed. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 24822/2011 3