IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7144 of 2011(P) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M/S. ROMAN TARMAT LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AT GENERAL VAIDYA MARG, GOREGAON EAST, MUMBAI-400063, HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT MANIMADOM, AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688561,REP. BY ITS P/A. HOLDER SRI. R. ANANTHA NARAYANAN. BY ADVS. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN SMT.G.DEEPA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER(WC & LT) OFFICE OF THE DY.COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA. 688 001. 2. DY. COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 693 001. 3. INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA.688001. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.695 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 7144 OF 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by Ext.P2 revised order of assessment, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P3 statutory appeal accompanied by Ext.P4 stay petition, before the second respondent appellate authority. According to the petitioner, during pendency of the appeal as well as the stay petition before the appellate authority, coercive steps of recovery has been initiated on the basis of Ext.P1 notice. Hence the petitioner seeks direction to restrain the recovery steps till the disposal of the appeal. 2. Further grievance voiced by the petitioner is that, with respect to the assessment year 2009-10, the petitioner is entitled for refund of huge amount on the basis of Ext.P5 audit report. The petitioner had submitted Ext.P6 application to the first respondent claiming refund of such amounts. But the first respondent is not considering and disposing Ext.P6 application. Hence the petitioner seeks 2 W.P.(C) No. 7144 OF 2011 appropriate direction. 3. Considering pendency of statutory appeal before the second respondent, I am of the view that, the writ petition can be disposed of directing that authority to expedite the matter. So also a direction can be issued to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 at the earliest possible. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 stay petition, after affording an opportunity of hearing 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. 5. The first respondent is directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P6 application for refund, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the earliest, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. Till such time orders are passed by the second 3 W.P.(C) No. 7144 OF 2011 respondent on Ext.P4 stay petition, recovery of amounts covered under Ext.P2, which is initiated on the basis of Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance. 7. The petitioner will produce copies of this judgment before respondents 1 and 2. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ami/