IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34191 of 2009(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S. GURUDEVA TRUST, MUKKADA, KUNDARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI. P. BABU, S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 42 YEARS, C/O.GURUDEVA TRUST, MUKKADA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, LUXURY TAX, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), KOLLAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.34191 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. Challenge is against the order of assessment issued under the provisions of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, as well as orders imposing penalty under Section 17 A of the said Act. Contention of the petitioner is that the building in question is an Auditorium owned by a Trust and the Auditorium is situated within the premises of a Temple owned by the very same Trust. Therefore it is contended that the Auditorium in question is liable to be exempted under the proviso to Section 4 of the Act. However, against Ext.P1 & P4 assessments and P7 & P9 orders imposing penalty, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P2 & Ext.P5 and P8 & P10 appeals respectively, before the 1st respondent. It is stated that the petitioner had also filed applications seeking early disposal of the appeals. But the 1st respondent has not so far considered and disposed of the appeals and how recovery steps have been initiated as evidenced by Ext.P11 notice issued under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. Hence the petitioner is seeking direction for early disposal of the appeal W.P.(C).34191/09-T 2 and till then to keep in abeyance recovery steps. 2. Having considered the fact that statutory appeals are pending before the 1st respondent, and also on taking note of the fact that the contentions are basically against liability for payment of the tax due under the statute, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on the appeals at the earliest. 3. Accordingly the 1st respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2, P5, P8 and P10 appeals, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. The respondents are directed to keep realisation of the amounts covered under the impugned assessment and penalty, which is initiated pursuant to Ext.P11 notice in abeyance, till orders are passed by the 1st respondent as directed above. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb