IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 8090 of 2011(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M/S.CONFIDENT PROJECT (INDIA) PVT. LTD., 868/2, S.A.ROAD, VYTTILA, KOCHI-682019, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.V.VARGHESE. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER (W.C.), O/O.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682 015. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682 015. 3. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM-682 013. 4. THE INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM-682 013. R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 8090 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment the petitioner had filed 1st appeal which was disposed of through Ext.P3 order, confirming the assessment. The petitioner had challenged Ext.P3 in second appeal filed before the 3rd respondent Tribunal, as per Ext.P4. Ext.P4 (a) is the stay petition filed along with the second appeal which is stated to be pending consideration and disposal before the Tribunal. Grievance of the petitioner is that now coercive steps of recovery has been initiated on the basis of Ext.P6 notice. 2. It is stated that during pendency of the 1st appeal an interim order was issued as per Ext.P5 to make payment of a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs.. The petitioner had challenged that order before this court and in Ext.P2 judgment this court directed the 1st appellate authority to dispose of the appeal within a time limit, taking note of the fact that the petitioner had already remitted payment of a sum of Rs.25 lakhs and further recovery was directed to be stayed till the disposal of the appeal. Contention of the petitioner is that 1st appellate authority had failed to appreciate the ground raised in its real perspective and the appeal was dismissed in a mechanical manner. WP(C) 8090/2011 2 3. However, considering the fact that the matter is now in seizin of the 3rd respondent Tribunal, I am of the view that a direction to that Tribunal to consider and pass orders on the stay petition will serve the interest of justice. Needless to say that the Tribunal while granting interim relief shall take note of the above narrated facts and also the payment of Rs.25 lakhs. 4. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4(a) stay petition, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as early as possible, at any rate within a period six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment . 5. Till such time orders are passed by the 3rd respondent as directed above, recovery of amounts covered under Ext.P1, which is now initiated on the basis of Ext.P6 notice, shall be kept in abeyance. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) 8090/2011 3