IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23811 of 2011(B) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.ROMA TRADERS, BIG BAZAAR, CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER PRAKASH J.SHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AUGUSTIAN SRI.V.K.SATHYANATHAN SRI.M.A.BABY SMT.V.VIJITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TAXES DEPARTMENT, TRiVANDRUM-695 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 3. INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, DEPT.OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 4. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.II, DEPT.OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 5. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, KOZHIKODE-673 001. ADV. C.K. GOVINDAN - GOVT. PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COY OF THE NOTICE OR347/10-11 DATED 3/9/2010. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF RECIEPT DATED 3/9/10 OF PAYMENT OF MONEY. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.TCR.17/10-11 DATED 11/3/2011 AND NOTICE OF DEMAND. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.TCR.17/10-11 DATED 11/3/2011 AND THE DEMAND NOTICES DATED 11/5/2011. EXHIBIT P5: PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE KVAT ACT 2003. EXHIBIT P6 & 7: TRUE COPY OF THE EARLIER CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER DATED 20/1/2007 AND ORDER ON APPEAL NO.62/10 DATED NOV.2010. EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPIES OF THE APPEAL AND PETITION FOR STAY FILED ON 2/6/2011. EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICES 4/8/2011 UNDER RR PROCEEDINGS. RESPONDANTS'S EXHIBITS : NIL TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 23811 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Against Exts.P3 and P4 penalty orders, the petitioner filed Ext.P8 appeal along with stay petition. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that now without disposing of the stay petition, Ext.P9 revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated for recovery of the disputed penalty. The petitioner submits that it is unjust to initiate coercive recovery proceedings before the appellate authority can consider the stay application. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. I am also of opinion that it is unjust to enforce the recovery proceedings before the appellate authority can consider and pass orders on the stay petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on stay petition, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till W.P.(C)No.23811/11 2 orders are passed on the stay petition, coercive recovery proceedings including revenue recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.23811/11 3