IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32887 of 2010(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ FATHIMA RAMEEZA MOHAMED PROPRIETRESS, GENERAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE, KMC-XVI/1807, ALIYA COMPLEX, KASARAGOD-671 121 BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM), SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR, SRI.K.UMAMAHESWAR. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (INVESTIGATION BRANCH) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KASARAGOD-671 121. *ADDL. R2 & R3 IMPLEADED ADDL. R2: DY. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE-673 006. ADDL. R3: INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KASARAGOD-671 121. * ARE IMPLEADED AS THE ADDL. 2ND & 3RD RESPONDENTS AS PER ORDER DATED 15/11/2010 IN I.A.15887/2010. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 32887 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Ext.P9 order imposing penalty under section 67(1) of the KVAT Act is under challenge in this writ petition. Contention of the petitioner is the first respondent had exercised its jurisdiction in a totally erroneous manner and that Ext.P9 order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 2. However, subsequent to filing of the writ petition, the petitioner had produced documents to show that she had already approached the appellate authority, the additional 2nd respondent herein, by filing Ext.P10 appeal against Ext.P9. 3. The petitioner had produced Ext.P11 notice issued by the additional 3rd respondent threatening with coercive steps of recovery. Under such circumstances, the petitioner seeks direction to restrain the recovery steps till the disposal of the appeal. 4. Considering pendency of the matter before the statutory authority, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing that authority to consider the matter. The WP(C).No.32887/2010 2 petitioner is at liberty to file stay petition before the additional 2nd respondent, seeking stay of recovery of the amount covered under Ext.P9, pending disposal of the appeal. 5. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider and pass orders either on Ext.P10 appeal or stay application if any filed by the petitioner, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest possible, at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. In order to facilitate the appellate authority to take a decision as directed above, the recovery steps now initiated pursuant to Ext.P11 notice shall be kept in abeyance till the additional 2nd respondent takes a decision. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).No.32887/2010 3