IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5829 of 2010(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S.SANKETHAM INVESTMENTS, CHOONDY, ALUVA, REP. BY ITS MG.PARTNER BOBAN JOSEPH MALIAKAL. BY ADVS. MR.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN, MR.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER IB, MATTANCHERRY, (ALUVA JURISDICTION). 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, WORKS CONTRACT, MATTANCHERRY. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 4. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, (RR) COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE, KAKKANADU. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 5829 of 2010-C ---------------------------- Dated this 5th the day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T Challenging Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal, along with Ext.P3 petition for stay and also Ext.P4 petition for early hearing, which are pending consideration before the third respondent. 2. After filing the Writ Petition, the petitioner has also been served with notice under Section 7 of the Revenue Recovery Act, as borne by Ext.P5, which has been produced along with I.A.No.3159 of 2010 seeking to realize the sum of Rs.13,71,279/- with interest and collection charges specified therein. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no rationale on the part of the first respondent in imposing penalty and that the appeal itself is liable to be considered; on which event, there will not be any liability, as the petitioner is reasonably expecting favourable orders to be passed by the appellate authority. 5. The learned Government Pleader submits that the averments raised by the petitioner and the submission made W.P(C) No. 5829 of 2010-C 2 through the learned learned counsel are not true and correct. In so far as the petitioner was having registration under the KVAT Act and is not having any registration under the KGST Act and further since Ext.P1 order is under Section 45A of the KGST Act; the contention raised in the appeal as well as in the Writ Petition do not hold any water at all; submits the learned Government Pleader. 6. Taking note of the rival submissions, this Court does not find it necessary to go into the merits of this case. More so, when the matter is pending consideration before the third respondent, in appeal. However, taking note of the fact that the coercive steps are being pursued against the petitioner, without any regard to the pendency of the appeal including the interlocutory application before the third respondent, the third respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 petition for stay, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that till such appropriate orders are passed on Ext.P3, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON ab JUDGE //True Copy//