IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 26014 of 2010(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.M.ANWAR K.M.STORES, MAYANNUR THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN SMT.K.B.SUBHAGAMANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, VAT CIRCLE, WADAKANCHERRY- 680582. 2. KERALA VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PALAKKAD BENCH, PALAKKAD - 695004. 3. INSECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER COM. TAXES, THRISSUR - 680125. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRO.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 26014 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Being aggrieved of Exts.P1 and P2 assessment orders in respect of the different assessment periods, the petitioner preferred statutory appeals before the appellate authority, who passed Ext.P3 common order, directing the assessing authority to modify the assessment as specified. Pursuant to the appellate order, Ext.P5 revised assessment order was passed aggrieved of which, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 appeal and Ext.P7 petition for stay, which are pending before the 2nd respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that, without any regard to the above proceedings, the petitioner is confronted with recovery steps, which made him to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as per the revised assessment order (Ext.P5), the total liability that is to be satisfied by the petitioner is nearly Rs.2.7 lakhs and the petitioner, to prove the bonafides, has already deposited Rs.90,000/-, i.e., 1/3 of the due amount as borne by Ext.P8. In the above circumstances, the petitioner seeks for a direction to have Ext.P4 appeal to be considered and disposed of in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. 2 WP(C) No. 26014/2010 4. Considering the nature of contentions raised and the similar course pursued by this Court earlier in respect of similar cause of action, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and pass final orders on Ext.P4 appeal in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, the recovery steps pursuant to Ext. P6 RR notice (which liability now stands substantially reduced to the extent as shown in Ext.P5) shall be kept in abeyance till such time. The petitioner shall furnish security for the balance amount within two weeks. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc