IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 20TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4156 of 2010(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- C.VARGHESE, PERIYAR LODGE, OPP.LITTLE FLOWER HOSPITAL, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.A.BYJU, S/O.LATE AVARACHAN PALLUPETTA, PALLUPETTA HOUSE, AGANAD P.O, PERUMBAVOOR (VIA), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,(WC & LT), O/O.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERRY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA. R1 TO R3 BYGOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 4156 OF 2010 T ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th February, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Proprietor of Periyar Lodge at Angamaly. According to him he is a small dealer who is not liable to take registration under the Luxuries Tax Act. The first respondent has completed assessment of the petitioner for the years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-2009. The allegation of the petitioner is that the assessments were completed without issuing any notice to or hearing the petitioner. The petitioner has therefore, challenged the orders of assessment passed against him by filing appeals before the second respondent. The appeals filed by the petitioner are Exts.P6 to P10. Along with the appeals the petitioner has also filed Exts.P11 to P15 stay petitions seeking to stay the recovery of the amounts assessed and demanded from him. His complaint is that no orders have been passed on the appeal or the stay petitions till date. At the same time, as per Ext.P16, Revenue Recovery proceedings have been initiated against him for the recovery of the tax assessed. The petitioner prays for appropriate orders staying the recovery proceedings during the pendency of the proceedings before the second respondent. This WPC 4156/2010 2 writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the second respondent to consider Exts.P11 to P15 stay petitions in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Until final orders are passed on Exts.P11 to P15 stay petitions, all further proceedings based on or pursuant to Ext.P16 shall remain stayed. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 4156/2010 3 K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: