IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22561 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JYOTHI LABORATORIES, LIMITED, KANDANASSERRY P.O.,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(ASSESSMENT) COMMERCIAL TAXES:SPECIAL CIRCLE:THRISSUR:680004 2. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,THRISSUR.680004. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM-682015. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2010, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) 22566 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 22561 & 22566 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 20th July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The issue involved in both these cases is rather similar. Challenging Ext.P1 assessment order, passed by the assessing authority, the petitioner ( in both the cases) has preferred Ext.P2 appeal along Ext.P3 petition for stay, which are pending consideration before the appellate authority. However, without any regard to the pendency of the above proceedings, Ext. P4 demand notice was issued, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that when similar matters came up for consideration before this Court, directions were given to the appellate authority to consider and finalise the appeals, subject to the condition that the petitioner satisfied 1/3rd of the disputed amount and furnished security for W.P.(C) No. 22561 & 22566 OF 2010 2 the balance amount so as to avail the benefit of interim stay. 4. In the above circumstance, this Court finds that similar verdict can be passed in these cases as well. Accordingly, the appellate authority (second respondent in W.P.(C)No. 22566 of 2010 and the third respondent in W.P.(C) No.22561 of 2010 ) is directed to consider and finalise Ext. P2 appeal (in both the cases) in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months. The coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance on condition that the petitioner (in both the cases) deposits 1/3rd of the disputed amount and furnishes security for the balance amount within two weeks . The Writ Petitions are disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk