IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10193 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- VIDYUT METALLICS PVT.LTD., ADITYA, 31/689 (1) S.A.ROAD, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM-682 019. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DY.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERNAKULAM. 2. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE II, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER AUTHORISED OFFICER, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P. ( C) No. 10193 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 25th March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is mainly aggrieved of Ext.P6 demand notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act notwithstanding the pendency of the statutory appeal as well as the interlocutory application for stay as borne by Exts.P4 and P5 preferred against Ext.P2 order passed by the second respondent imposing penalty upon the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the plight of the petitioner is rather pathetic in so far as the registration of the petitioner has already been cancelled and hence there is no business for quite long. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the penalty was imposed in view of the delay in remitting the tax and that the tax liability has been W.P. ( C) No. 10193 OF 2010 2 cleared by the petitioner. It is also stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was made to furnish Ext. P1 Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs.25 lakhs and the same is very much available with the respondents, though it was in connection with the 'additional security deposit'. Since the petitioner does not have any business as on date, the petitioner seeks for direction to the first respondent to consider the appeal itself and to have the proceedings finalised; more so, since the impugned order passed by the second respondent is in respect of the penalty and not with regard to tax . 4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the first respondent could be directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P4 appeal. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to consider and pass final orders on Ext.P4 appeal in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment . It is made clear that till such final orders are passed, all further coercive proceedings W.P. ( C) No. 10193 OF 2010 3 pursuant to Ext. P6 shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk