IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 490 of 2010(I) ------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.SUN GRANITES, MAIN ROAD, ORKKATTERI, VADAKARA, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR.G.SREENIVASULU. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.SANATH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAX DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-I, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKKODE. 4. SALES TAX OFFICER (RECOVERY), O/O.DY.COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPT., KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 490 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 7th January , 2010 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner is that coercive proceedings invoking the provisions under the Revenue Recovery Act as borne by Ext.P6 notice, are being pursued against the petitioner notwithstanding the pendency of the statutory appeal and petition for stay before the appellate authority. 2. Challenging Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 memorandum of appeal along with Exts. P4 petition for stay and P5 petition for early hearing before the third respondent, which unfortunately are kept in cold storage, according to the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that the above proceedings were admittedly filed only in the month of September, 2009 and that there is no lapse or undue delay on the part of the appellate authority in any manner. 3. However, taking note of the fact that the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act has been set very much against W.P.(C) No. 490 OF 2010 2 the petitioner, this Court finds it fit and proper to have the matter finalised by the appellate authority at the earliest. Accordingly, the appellate authority is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 petition for stay, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. However, it is made clear that till such appropriate orders are passed on Ext.P4, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P6 shall be kept in abeyance. 4. There is also a further grievance for the petitioner that the second respondent is not issuing necessary 'C' forms, which very much adversely affects the conduct of the business of the petitioner and that the petitioner has already approached the second respondent by filing Ext.P7 request in this regard. The second respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a W.P.(C) No. 490 OF 2010 3 copy of Ext. P7 request before the second respondent . The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk