IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2384 of 2010(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.SUPREME SANITATIONS, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MG.PARTNER.T.S.ABRAHAM. BY ADV. SRI.JAMES KURIAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (ASSESSING AUTHORITY) SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR (RR) COMMERCIAL TAXES, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 2384 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 25th January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of the non consideration and non-finalisation of Ext.P9 appeal preferred against Ext.P8 order, passed by the second respondent, imposing huge liability upon the petitioner by way of penalty under Section 45A of the KGST Act . The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the original order was passed by the first respondent as borne by Ext.P6, which was challenged by filing appeal before the second respondent, who considered the same and brought down the liability by about 50% as borne by Ext. P8. Since the specific points raised by the petitioner/appellant therein were not properly adverted to, the petitioner was constrained to file further appeal before the third respondent way back in February, 2009. It is the case of the petitioner that, despite the lapse of nearly one year, Ext.P9 appeal preferred before the third W.P.(C) No. 2384 OF 2010 2 respondent is still to be acted upon. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the revenue recovery proceedings as borne by Ext.P10 have been initiated and pursued, for the obvious reason that no stay has been granted by the Tribunal. It is stated that the petitioner had approached the Government for staying the coercive steps. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, considering the request of the petitioner, the Government had permitted the petitioner to clear the liability by way of 'six' equal monthly installments as borne by Ex.P14. 3. However, taking note of the fact that Ext.P9 appeal is pending for nearly one year, this Court finds it fit and proper to direct the third respondent to have the same finalised, particularly in view of the nature of the contentions raised in the appeal as well as in the Writ Petition. 4. In the above facts and circumstances, the third respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P9 appeal in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner , which shall be finalised W.P.(C) No. 2384 OF 2010 3 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that till such final orders are passed on Ext. P9 appeal, all further coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P10 shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of, as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk