IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10316 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SRI.C.P.ABOOTY, VEE TEE TRADERS, PATTACHIRA, PUDUNAGARAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.II, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R.), THALASSERY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 10316 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 26th March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenging Ext.P1 assesment order dated 07.03.2009, the petitioner has filed Ext. P2 appeal along with a petition for stay. After considering the merits involved, the second respondent/appellate authority dismissed the stay petition vide Ext. P3 order dated 08.03.2010 holding that no prima facie case was established for conditional stay by the appellant therein. Since the appeal is kept pending and final orders are yet to be passed, it is stated that the petitioner is constrained to face the consequential proceedings by way of revenue recovery as borne by Exts. P4 and P4(a), without any alternate remedy, which, hence, is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the course pursued by the second respondent/appellate authority is not correct or proper, in so far as the appeal preferred against the assessment orders is kept in tact, W.P.(C) No. 10316 OF 2010 2 however dismissing the stay petition holding that there was no prima facie case, thus virtually defeating the rights and liberties of the petitioner/appellant to pursue further steps in accordance with law, for which appropriate orders are to be passed in the appeal as well. 4. In the above circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P2 appeal in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 5. It is made clear that all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P4 and P4(a) shall be kept in abeyance on condition that the petitioner satisfies 50% of the amount shown in Ext.P1 order, within a period of two weeks. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk