IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2011 / 26TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 22343 of 2011(P) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANNAMMA ABRAHAM, TOBACCO MERCHANT, M.L.ROAD, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, SECOND CIRCLE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.), KOTTAYAM. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN - GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 22343 of 2011(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER DATED 29.10.2010 BEARING NUMBER 32461530506/07-08 ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P2: COPY OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R2. EXT.P3: COPY OF APPLICATION TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.7.2011 ISSUED BY R3. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. acd S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.22343 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 penalty order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 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 1st 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.P3 and P4 applications together. If the appellate authority is W.P.(C)No.22343/11 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 penalty disputed in the appeal shall be kept in abeyance. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.22343/11 3