IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1357 of 2011(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.PANDIRAJ, PROPRIETOR, MEENA PAPERS, KUNNAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KUNNAMKULAM-680 503. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 015. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR-680 001. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MADURAI-638 102. 5. REVENUE INSPECTOR, WEST MADURAI VILLAGE, MADURAI SOUTH TALUK, TAMIL NADU-630 001. 6. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. BY SRI.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.1357 of 2011-T ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by Exts.P4 to P6 orders of assessment finalised with respect to the years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05, the petitioner had preferred Exts.P8 to P10 appeals before the 2nd respondent. It is stated that the appeals are filed along with applications seeking condonation of delay as well as stay petitions seeking stay of realisation of disputed tax amount. According to the petitioner the assessment were finalised on an ex-parte basis and major additions were made on the ground that the petitioner had failed to produce required 'C' forms with respect to the turn over, upon which concessional rate of tax was claimed. It is further stated that all such 'C' forms are now available with the petitioner and if those documents are taken note of, there will not be any further liability under the assessment. 2. The petitioner is approaching this Court W.P(C) No.1357 of 2011-T 2 aggrieved by coercive steps of recovery initiated on the basis of Ext.P11 notice, without considering pendency of the appeal. Since the matter is in seizin of the appellate authority, I am of the view that it is not proper for this Court to entertain the writ petition for considering the merits. On the other hand the appellate authority can be directed to expedite the matter. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the delay condonation applications filed along with Exts.P8 to P10 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. If delay is condoned and appeals are registered, then the 2nd respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders on the stay petitions filed along with the appeals. Needless to say that while granting interim reliefs, the 2nd respondent shall take note of the contentions of the petitioner as enumerated above. W.P(C) No.1357 of 2011-T 3 4. Till such time orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above, recovery of amounts covered under Exts.P4, P5 and P6 assessment orders, which is now initiated on the basis of Ext.P11 shall be kept in abeyance. 5. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab