IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17807 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.PONNUSWAMY NADAR, NADAR, PROPRIETOR, KRISHNAN & COMPANY, NO.15, CHELIMADA, K.K.ROAD, KUMILI- 685 909 DIST-IDUKKI. BY ADV. MR. K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, IDUKKI AT KATTAPPANA, DIST.IDUKKI. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAX, RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, GOVT.OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 17807 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 29th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the first respondent, imposing penalty under Section 67 of KVAT Act, petitioner has filed statutory revision as borne by Ext.P4 under Section 57 of the Act, before the second respondent along Ext.P5 petition for stay. The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite pendency of the proceedings as above, the respondents have caused to initiate the revenue recovery steps against the petitioner, aggrieved of which, the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. Considering the fact that the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy by way of Ext.P4, preferred before the second respondent, this Court does not find it necessary to go into the merits of the case, for the time being. In the said circumstances, the second respondent is hereby directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P4 and P5 proceedings preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. However, it is made clear that till appropriate orders are passed on Ext.P5 petition for stay, all further coercive proceedings, stated as being pursued against the petitioner, shall be kept in abeyance. WP (C) No. 17807 of 2009 : 2 : The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd