IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2011 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5346 of 2011(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SAI CHEM TECH PVT. LTD., DOOR NO.42/2208 VIVAIL BUILDINGS, 2ND FLOOR, K.K.PADMANABHAN ROAD, KOCHI-16, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR A.JANAKI RANI. BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM. 682 015. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 682 035. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, PIN:682015. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRO./C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss tss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 5346 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2011. JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P2, P3 and P3(a) orders of assessment completed with respect to the years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, under the KVAT Act and as well as the CST Act, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P7, P8 and P9 appeals before the 3rd respondent. So also against Ext.P4 and P5 orders through which penalty was imposed for the above said periods, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P10 and P11 appeals before the same authority. The appeals were filed along with petitions seeking condonation of delay as evidenced from Ext.P7(a), P8(a), P9(a), P10(a) and P11(a). Stay petitions were also filed along with the appeals as per Ext.P7(b), P8(b), P9(b), P10(b) and P11(b). According to the petitioner, the appeals as well as accompanying applications are pending consideration and disposal before the 3rd respondent. Grievance of the petitioner is that coercive steps of recovery has now been initiated without considering pendency of the appeals. Hence, the petitioner seeks interference in this Court to restrain the recovery steps till disposal of this appeal. 2. Considering pendency of the matter before the statutory authority, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed W.P.(C). NO. 5346 OF 2011 2 of directing the appellate authority to consider the matter on an early basis. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider the delay condonation applications filed along with the appeals after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the delay is condoned and appeals are registered, then the 3rd respondent shall consider and dispose of the stay petitions filed along with the appeals, simultaneously. 4. Till such time orders are passed by the 3rd respondent as directed above, recovery of amounts covered under the impugned orders of assessment as well as the orders imposing the penalty shall be kept in abeyance. 5. The petitioner will produce copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE mns