IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2011 / 10TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17763 of 2011(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S.HARVEST INDUSTRIES, 33/204, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, K.D.PLOT (PO), KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.T.M.CLETUS. BY ADVS. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN, SMT.G.DEEPA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, FIRST CIRCLE, KALAMASSERY – 682 025. 2. THE DY.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM – 682 015. 3. THE INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM – 682 015. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM – 695 001. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.17763/2011-U: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 23/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE R.3. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 28/02/2011 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER DT. 19/04/2011 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DTD. 05/04/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 17763 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Against Exts.P2 revised order of assessment and P3 penalty order, the petitioner had filed appeals before the 2nd respondent, as evidenced from Exts.P4 and P5. Along with the appeals, the petitioner had filed stay petitions as evidenced from Exts.P6 and P7. It is submitted that the appeals as well as the stay petitions are pending consideration and disposal before the 2nd respondent. Grievance of the petitioner is that, without considering pendency of the appeals, coercive steps for recovery has now been initiated on the basis of Ext.P1 notice. 2. Heard; learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. Considering pendency of the statutory appeals, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the appellate authority to expedite the matter. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P6 and P7 WP(C).17763/2011 2 stay petitions filed along with the appeals, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment . 4. Till such time orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above, recovery of the amounts covered under Exts.P2, and P3, which is now initiated on the basis of Ext.P1 notice, shall be kept in abeyance. 5. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).17763/2011 3