IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 955 of 2010(T) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ AHAMMED SHEREEF, PROPRIETOR, M/S.PUTHANPURAYIL CRUSHER, CHALAKAL, MARAMPILLY PO., ALUVA. BY ADVS. MR.C.K.THANU PILLAI, MR.K.P.JOY. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.III, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ALUVA. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ----------------------------- W.P(C) No.955 of 2010 -T ------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 Revenue Recovery notice issued at the instance of the respondents in connection with the amounts stated as due towards the tax liability. The penalty imposed on the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 order has already been subjected to challenge by filing Ext.P2 appeal before the second respondent, along with Ext.P3 petition for stay and also Ext.P4 application to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P5 revenue recovery proceedings are not correct or sustainable in view of the pendency of the above proceedings. Considering the facts and circumstances and also after hearing the learned Government Pleader, this Court finds it fit and proper, that the matter could be finalised by giving appropriate direction to the second respondent/appellate authority to consider Ext.P2 appeal and the interlocutory applications in accordance with law. W.P(C) No.955 of 2010 -T 2 Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 application to condone the delay in filing Ext.P2 appeal and also on Ext.P3 petition for stay, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. It is made clear that till such appropriate orders are passed thereon, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P. A to Judge ab