IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5294 of 2011(J) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M/S. ROSHINI TRADERS, NEAR BUS STAND, NADAPURAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. RATHEESH V. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.SANATH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. ASST. COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE-II, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 4. INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER(RECOVERY), DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, JAWHAR NAGAR, KOZHIKODE-673 001. NY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 5294 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Assessments with respect to the petitioner for the year 2008-09 was completed, both under the KVAT Act and CST Act, through Exts. P1 and P3 orders, respectively. Exts.P2 and P4 are the Demand Notices issued. Statutory appeals were preferred against the Assessments before the 3rd respondent, as per Exts.P5 and P6. The petitioner had also filed stay petitions as per Exts.P7 and P8. In Ext.P7, the 3rd respondent had issued Ext.P10 interim order, granting conditional stay subject to payment of 1/3rd of the amount under demand under the respective assessment. In the meanwhile, through Ext.P9 revenue recovery was threatened for reaslisation of the demand under the assessments in question. In the writ petition the petitioner is seeking relief to the extent of directing disposal of Exts.P5 and P6 appeals and to restrain the recovery steps till then. 2. As far as Ext.P3 assessment is concerned, Ext.P6 appeal and Ext.P8 stay petition are still pending before the 3rd WP(C) .5294/2011 2 respondent. Hence I am of the view that a direction can be issued to the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of the appeal or the stay petition within a time frame, and to stay the recovery steps to that extent, till then. 3. But as far as Ext.P10 order is concerned, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere. More over, there is no specific challenge against the said order. Hence the revenue recovery steps initiated for realising amounts covered under Ext.P1 assessment, cannot be restrained. However, learned counsel for the petitioner appealed for extension of the time limit prescribed for compliance of the condition stipulated in Ext.P10, which I am inclined to grant. Under the above mentioned circumstances the writ petition is disposed of as follows:- i) The 3rd respondent is directed to consider and dispose of either Ext.P6 appeal or Ext.P8 stay petition, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time the demand pertaining to Ext.P3 assessment, for which recovery is initiated under Ext.P9 shall be kept in abeyance. WP(C) .5294/2011 3 ii) With respect to the demand for payment of amounts due under Ext.P1 assessment for which Ext.P5 appeal is pending, all earnest efforts shall be taken by the 3rd respondent to dispose of the appeal, at the earliest. However, recovery steps in this regard shall be kept in abeyance if the petitioner complies with the condition stipulated in Ext.P10 order, within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .5294/2011 4