IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2011 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1933 WP(C).No. 13549 of 2011(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- A.J.NIZAR, SAJ TRADING COMPANY, PALLIMUKKU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.MATHEWS RAJU RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. FAST TRACK ADALATH TEAM V, REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM. 3. THE COMMERCIAL SALES TAX OFFICER, KOLLAM. BY SRI.PRADEEP P P,GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jma C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 13549 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. Feeling aggrieved by the assessment under section 17(D) of the Act made as per Ext.P2 the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the first respondent. Along with the appeal the petitioner has filed an application for exemption from payment of tax assessed under section 17(D)(5) of the Act. Ext.P4 is the said application. The contention of the petitioner is that such an exemption is permissible in terms of the decision of this Court in Popular Vehicles & Services Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner and others (2010 18 KTR 10(Kerala)). Along with the appeal the petitioner has also moved Ext.P5 application to stay collection of the disputed tax. Pending decisions on the said aplications and the appeal the respondents have taken steps to effect recovery of the disputed tax. The said fact is evident from Ext.P2. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed. WPC.13549/2011 : 2 : 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already preferred Ext.P3 appeal against Ext.P2 and that the said appeal is accompanied by Exts.P4 and P5 applications, I do not propose to consider the contentions raised in this writ petition on merits. Considering the fact that the respondents have initiated action to effect recovery of the disputed tax despite the pendency of Ext.P4 application and Ext.P5 application for stay moved by the petitioner in Ext.P3 appeal, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition as hereunder:- The first respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 application for exemption and also consider Ext.P5 application for staying the collection of the disputed tax, moved by the petitioner along with Ext.P3 appeal preferred by him against Ext.P2. This shall be done by the respondents within a period of 3 weeks. Till the first respondent passes orders on Exts.P4 and P5 all coercive steps for recovery of the disputed tax involved in this case, shall be kept in abeyance. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge