IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2009 / 11TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18515 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- E.A.HASSAINAR, PROPRIETOR, BARE POULTRY FARM, BARE, UDUMA. BY ADV. MR. RAJESH NAMBIAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ADDL.SALES TAX OFFICER-III, SALES TAX OFFICE, HOSDURG. 2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KASARAGOD. 3. SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), HOSDURG. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 18515 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 2nd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The case case of the petitioner is that, though the impugned orders passed by the first appellate authority have already been subjected to challenge by filing necessary proceedings before the 3rd respondent Tribunal and even though the said appeals have already been heard, no final orders are passed presumably since the petitioner could not satisfy the condition imposed while granting interim orders of stay. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the condition imposed while granting the interim order could not be complied with, because of some unforeseen circumstances and that there was no wilful lapses or deliberate negligence in this regard. It is also pointed out that, the petitioner though approached the Tribunal intending to satisfy the said liability, it was however not accepted as prescribed time was already over. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4.Considering the facts and circumstance,the petitioner is permitted to effect the deposit as ordered by the Tribunal vide Exts.P5 and P7, if the same is effected within a period of 10 days. On such an event, the respondent Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders on the appeals, stated as preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law, as expeditiously as WP (C) No. 18515 of 2009 : 2 : possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, till such appropriate orders are passed, the coercive proceeding, stated as being pursued against the petitioner, pursuant to Ext.P8 shall be kept in abeyance, which in turn will depend upon the outcome in the appeal. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd