IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 6TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25592 of 2011(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------- M/S.MAGNUM ENTERPRISES,PUTHIYANKAM, PALAKKAD, REP.BY GANESH , MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADVS. SRI.P.RAGHUNATHAN SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND COMMERCIAL TAXES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALATHUR 678 541. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,SALES TAX COMPLEX,,ERNAKULAM, 682 015. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,CHITTUR 678 101. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SHAMSUDHEEN V.K. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JJJ WP(C).No. 25592 of 2011(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF ORDER DATE 10.10.10 P2: COPY OF APPEAL FILED AGAINST EXHIBIT P1 ORDER P3: COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P2 APPEAL P4: COPY OF RR NOTICE ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF EXHIBIT P1 ORDER RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE JJJ S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 25592 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 28th day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T Against Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 stay petition. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition, Ext.P4 revenue recovery notice has been issued, which is unjust and unreasonable. The petitioner also admits that there is some delay in filing the appeal and the petitioner has also filed an application for condonation of delay, although a copy of the same has not been produced in this writ petition. The petitioner therefore seeks stay of recovery pending disposal of the appeal. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. I am of opinion that before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition, it is unjust to enforce recovery. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: If the petitioner has filed a petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal, the 2nd respondent appellate authority shall consider the said application to condone the delay along with Ext.P3 stay application. If the 2nd respondent appellate authority is inclined to condone the delay, he shall pass orders on the stay petition also simultaneously as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this W.P(C) No. 25592 of 2011 -: 2 :- judgment. Till orders are passed on the stay petition, further coercive recovery proceedings for recovery of the tax disputed in Ext.P2 appeal shall be kept in abeyance. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/