IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24703 of 2010() --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- P.NATARAJAN, RAJAN CASHEW COMPANY, MARANADU, EZHUKONE, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN, SMT.LALIZA.T.Y. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM AT KOTTARAKKARA. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 3. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, UNDER KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 24703 of 2010-K ---------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T Being aggrieved of the CST assessment in respect of the assessment year 2005-06 and KGST assessment in respect of the assessment year 2006-07, finalised as per Exts.P2, P6 and P10 assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Ext.P4 statutory appeal before the first appellate authority, but the same did not turn to be fruitful, as borne by Exts.P3, P7 and P11. Met with the situation, the petitioner has preferred Exts. P4, P8 and P12 appeals along with Ext.P5, P9 and P13 petitions for stay, which are pending consideration before the third respondent. It is also the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner produced Exts.P14 and P15 petitions to receive additional documents in evidence, which are also pending consideration before the said Tribunal. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, without any regard to the pendency of the above proceedings, coercive steps by way of garnishee proceedings are being pursued as borne by Ext.P19 communication issued by the fourth respondent, to the SBI, Kollam. The learned counsel also submits that, when the matter was pending consideration before the first W.P(C) No. 24703 of 2010-K 2 appellate authority, the petitioner had filed W.P(C) No.22715 of 2010, which was disposed of by this Court on 21.7.2010 giving appropriate direction, but on the same day, the second respondent choses to pass the impugned order, which made the petitioner to challenge the same further by filing second appeals along with the interlocutory applications for stay, which are pending consideration before the third respondent. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Considering the sequence of events as narrated in the Writ Petition and after hearing both the sides, this Court finds it fit and proper to direct the third respondent to consider Ext.P5, P9 and P13 petitions for stay fothwith. Accordingly, the third respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P5, P9 and P13, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that till such orders are passed on Exts.P5, P9 and P13 petitions for stay, the implementation of Ext.P19 shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of. ab P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE