IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5549 of 2011(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ BHARATH HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. BHEL SITE OFFICE, BPCL KOCHI REFINERY SITE, AMABALMUGHAL 682 302, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER FINANCE, SRI.S.SANKARASUBRAMANIAM. BY ADVS. SMT.S.K.DEVI, SRI.SHANMUGHAM D. JAYAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER (WC) DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KARGIL LANE, ERNAKULAM 682 018. 2. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM 682 015. 3. THE INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER, DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM 682 030. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 5549 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 series orders of assessment finalised with respect to the years 1997-98 to 1999 – 2000, the petitioner had preferred statutory appeals before the Deputy Commissioner. Before filing the said appeals petitioner had approached this court challenging the orders of assessment and in Ext.P5 judgment this court directed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority within a period of two weeks. The appellate authority was directed to dispose of such appeal within two months and till then it was directed to keep in abeyance the recovery steps. 2. Through Ext.P4 common order, the appeals were dismissed upholding the assessment. Now the petitioner had preferred further appeals against Ext.P4 before the 2nd respondent Tribunal, as evidenced from Exts.P6,P6(a) and P6(b). Grievance of the petitioner is that without considering pendency of the appeals, coercive steps of recovery has now been initiated on the basis of Ext.P7 demand notice issued. It is also stated WP(C) .5549/2011 2 that as part of recovery steps, prohibitory orders have been issued against garnishee, who is the awarder of work undertaken by the petitioner. Under such circumstance petitioner seeks for an early disposal of the appeals and till then to stay the recovery steps. 3. It is noticed that the matter is in seizin of the appellate Tribunal. It is for the petitioner to seek appropriate interim relief from that Tribunal, with respect to the matter of recovery. However , I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the Tribunal to consider and pass orders either on the appeals or on the stay petition if any filed at the earliest. 4. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file stay petitions before the 2nd respondent Tribunal seeking appropriate interim relief, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If stay petitions are filed as directed above within the time stipulated, the 2nd respondent Tribunal shall consider and dispose of either the stay petitions or if possible the appeals itself, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as early as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the stay petitions. WP(C) .5549/2011 3 5. In order to facilitate the petitioner to approach the Tribunal as directed above and for the Tribunal to consider the matter, recovery steps now initiated pursuant to Ext.P7 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three months from today. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .5549/2011 4