IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5013 of 2010(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.S.SUJATHAN, PROPRIETOR,BENOY MARBLE & GRANTIES, AMABALAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT)-11 COMMERCIAL TAXES (SPECIAL CIRCLE ) KVAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (INVESTIGATION BRANCH) COMMERCIAL TAXES,KOLLAM. 3. THE DY.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 4. THE KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ADDITIONAL BENCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.5013 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Challenging Exts.P1 to P3 orders imposing penalty in respect of the assessment years 2002-03 to 2004-05 the petitioner filed statutory appeals before the 3rd respondent, which however, did not become fruitful to the desired extent as revealed from Ext.P4 order passed by the said authority. Aggrieved by Ext.P4 order petitioner has preferred Exts.P5 to P7 second appeals which are stated to have been pending consideration before the 4th respondent. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has preferred Exts.P8 to P10 petitions for stay and it is without any regard to the pendency of the said proceedings Ext.P11 notice has been issued under the Revenue Recovery Act, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits with reference to the materials on record that the interlocutory applications stated to have been filed seeking for stay and produced as Exts.P8 to P10 are actually not petitions for stay, but petitions for early hearing of the appeals. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the petitioner has already preferred petitions for stay before the 4th respondent along with petitions for early hearing as well and it was W.P(C)No.5013/2010 -:2:- only by virtue of an inadvertent mistake, that in the place of photo copies of the stay petitions the petitions for early hearing have been caused to be produced as Exts.P8 to P10. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, the 4th respondent is directed to consider the petitions for stay, if any, filed by the petitioner and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also made clear that till such orders are passed on the petitions for stay, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P11 shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge ahg. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.5013 of 2010 ----------------------------------- JUDGMENT 16th February, 2010