IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25686 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ C.HANEEFA, PROPRIETOR, BROTHERS SAW MILL, THENKURUSSI POST, PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DIST. BY SRI. V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: app/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.25686 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Against Exts.P1 to P4 orders imposing penalty, the petitioner had filed appeals as evidenced by Exts.P5 to P8 before the second respondent, along with petitions seeking condonation of delay as evidenced by Exts.P9 to P12. The petitioner had also filed interim applications seeking stay of collection of the amounts covered under the impugned orders, as evidenced by Exts.P13 to P18. Grievance of the petitioner is that pending consideration of the appeals, delay condonation applications and stay applications, steps for recovery has been now initiated pursuant to issuance of Exts.P17 to P19 notices. It is contended that if the amount is recovered through coercive steps, pending disposal of the appeal, that will cause severe W.P.(C) No.25686 of 2009 2 prejudice to the petitioner and it will defeat the contentions raised in the appeal. 2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the second respondent appellate authority to expedite consideration of the appeals as well as the accompanying applications. 3. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider and dispose of Exts.P9 to P12 applications filed seeking condonation of delay, as early as possible after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the second respondent is inclined to condone delay in filing the appeals, he may proceed to consider and disposed of the stay applications evidenced by Exts.P13 to P16 simultaneously. Third respondent is directed to keep in abeyance further steps for realisation of the amount W.P.(C) No.25686 of 2009 3 covered under impugned orders of penalty (Ext.P1 to P4) till the second respondent passes orders on the delay condonation application and stay petitions. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE app/-