IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3078 of 2011(H) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.G.SOMAN,PANGAPPAT HOUSE, AMANAKKARA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.K.SRIKUMAR, SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, (AUDIT ASSESSMENT) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM- 686 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY,KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-15. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,REVENUE RECOVERY OFFICE,PALAI- 686 575. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 3078 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Exts.P1 and P2 orders of assessment completed with respect to the years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the petitioner had preferred statutory appeals before the 2nd respondent Tribunal, as per Exts.P3 and P4. The Tribunal had issued interim orders on the appeals as evidenced from Exts.P5 and P5(a). Petitioner was insisted upon to furnish security for a sum of Rs.19,836/- with respect to the amount covered under Ext.P1 and to make payment of a sum of Rs.50,000/- and to furnish security for the balance amount, which is covered under Ext. P2 orders of assessment. 2. According to the petitioner, as evidenced from Ext.P6 series receipts, the petitioner had effected payment of a total sum of Rs.1,30,000/-. It is further stated that security bond was also furnished as insisted on Exts.P5 and P5(a). But it is conceded that remittances were made not within the period mentioned under the interim orders. Grievance of the petitioner WP(C).3078/2011 2 is that without considering the remittances made under Ext.P6 series, recovery steps has now been initiated on the basis of Exts.P7 and P8 notices. Hence interference of this court is sought for to restrain the recovery steps till the disposal of the appeal. 3. Having considered the fact that the petitioner had already remitted the amounts insisted on Exts.P5 and P5(a) and since it is stated that the security bond has already been furnished, I am of the view that further steps of recovery can be directed to be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the appeals. 4. Under the above circumstance the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent Tribunal to consider and dispose of Exts.P3 and P4 appeals at the earliest possible,after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. Till such time orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above, recovery of amounts covered under Exts.P1 and P2, which is now initiated on the basis of Exts.P7 to P8 notices, shall be kept in abeyance. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).3078/2011 3