IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 14TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 24066 of 2011(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AYSHA BUSHARA, PROPRIETRIX, A.P.SOAPS AND COSMETICS, NIDA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.VIII, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 2. ASST.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 3. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, PRIYADARSINI ROAD, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 24066/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 COPY OF BANK GUARANTEE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 COPY OF BANK GUARANTEE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 24066 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 5th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of respondents 1 and 2 in encahsing the bank guarantee issued by the 3rd respondent on behalf of the petitioner for releasing the consignment detained under Section 4 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act after imposing penalty pursuant to proceedings initiated under Section 47 of the Act. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner has already filed appeals along with stay petitions and it is unjust to invoke bank guarantee before the appellate authority could consider the stay petitions. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. I am satisfied that before the appellate authority could consider and pass orders on Exts.P7 and P8 stay petitions, it is unjust to initiate coercive recovery proceedings for recovery of the amount disputed. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The 2nd respondent shall consider and pass orders on Exts.P7 and P8 stay petitions, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till orders are passed on Exts.P7 and P8, coercive recovery proceedings for recovery of the disputed amounts in Exts.P5 and P6 shall be kept in abeyance. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge