IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16022 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- LLOYD INSULATIONS (INDIA) LTD., ANTONY ESTATE, MANORAMA JUNCTION, COCHIN-682 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER (CS), VINOD MENON. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR ADV. SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS ADV. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (TAXES), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 16022 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 10th June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had challenged the assessment order passed by the assessing authority in respect of the assessment year 2000-01 before the appellate authority, which however, was dismissed, as borne by Ext.P1 order, which in turn has been subjected to challenge by filing the Second Appeal before the Tribunal, where it is stated as pending, as borne by Ext. P2. The petitioner has also preferred Ext.P3 petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and Ext. P4 petition for stay. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, the matter is disposed of, directing the first respondent to consider Ext. P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 and Ext. P4 and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, of course, after giving an W.P.(C) No. 16022 OF 2009 2 opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible. It is also made clear that till such orders as passed on Exts. P3 petition to condone the delay and Ext.P4 petition for stay, all coercive steps stated as pursued against the petitioner vide Ext. P5 shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk