IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 704 of 2011(K) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- M/S.HI-LITE PROJECTS AND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., NIRMAL ARCADE, 2N FLOOR, D15/193, BYPASS ROAD, CALICUT-673006, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECOTOR,.SULAIMAN. BY DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF COMMISSIOER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, CALICUT COMMISSIONERATE, C.R.BUILDING, MANANCHIRA, CALICUT-673001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.TOJAN J.VATHIKULAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.704 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order issued by the 1st respondent imposing service tax on the petitioner, statutory appeal was filed before the 2nd respondent as evidenced from Ext.P2. Along with appeal the petitioner had filed Ext.P3 stay petition seeking stay against collection of service tax, pending disposal of the appeal. It is stated that the matter is pending before the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent has not so far considered either the appeal or the stay petition. The petitioner is aggrieved by coercive steps of recovery, now being threatened, without considering the pendency of the appeal. Hence direction was sought for to restrain recovery steps till the disposal of the appeal. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is only a Sub Contractor and the building contractor had already paid the service tax due and therefore the petitioner is not liable for payment of the tax assessed under Ext.P1. W.P.(C).704/11 -2- 3. Considering pendency of the matter before the statutory appellate authority, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of by directing that authority to consider the matter on an early basis. 4. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders either on Ext.P2 appeal or on Ext.P3 stay petition, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as early as possible, at any rate within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. 5. Till such time orders are issued by the 2nd respondent as directed above, realisation of the amounts covered under Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance. 6. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb