IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 8TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26041 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.BEAUTY GARMENTS,MELE PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,SMT.SALEELA.M.L. BY ADV. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN SMT.G.DEEPA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,COMMERCIAL TAXES,PATTAMBI,PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 689 001. 2. THE DY.COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM- 682 015. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,PALAKKAD- 689 001. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,TAXES DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED DT.17-9-2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEARS 2009-2010. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.23-12-2010 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEARS 2009-10. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DT.25-1-2011 FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEARS 2009-10. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY FO THE STAY PETITIONER DT.25-1-2011 FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEARS 2009-10. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY PETITION DT.18-3-2011 FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.26041 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Against Ext.P2 revised assessment order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal along with Ext.P5 application to condone delay and Ext.P4 stay petition. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that before the appellate authority could consider the interim applications, the 3rd respondent has initiated recovery proceedings for recovery of the tax disputed in the appeal. The petitioner submits that it is unjust to enforce the recovery proceedings before the appellate authority could consider the interim applications. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. I am also of opinion that before the appellate authority could consider the interim applications, it is unjust to initiate coercive recovery proceedings. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The 2nd respondent appellate authority shall consider Exts.P4 and P5 applications together. If the appellate authority is W.P.(C)No.26041/11 2 inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal, the orders shall also be passed on Ext.P4 stay petition. This shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till then, coercive recovery proceedings for recovery of the tax disputed in the appeal shall be kept in abeyance. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.26041/11 3