IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14992 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER --------------- I.P.RUBY LATEX (P) LTD., TANAH, MUMPAD, MALAPPURAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR J.K.MARATTUKALAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER(IB)-1, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(INT.), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MALAPPURAM AT MANJERI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No.14992 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 18th May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of the course and procedure pursued by the third respondent while passing Ext.P1 order imposing penalty upon the petitioner, which has already been challenged by Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 petition for stay, which are pending consideration before the third respondent. It is also contended that the course pursued by the very same officer is diametrically opposed to the course pursued by the very same officer earlier. To prove the said contention, the petitioner has produced Ext.P6 order passed by the v ery same officer. The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved of the steps stated as pursued against him, as borne by Ext.P4. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, particularly the divergent course pursued, this Court finds that the matter W.P.(C) No.14992 OF 2010 2 requires to be considered and finalised by the second respondent in the appeal, more so, when the actual liability is stated as cleared by the petitioner. 4. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to pass final orders on Ext.P2 appeal, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Till such orders are passed in the appeal, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P1 and P4 shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk