IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31755 of 2011(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- JAYAN P.T., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.THANKAPPANPILLAI, PROPRIETOR, M/S.MAYOORA TRADERS, KANICHAKULANGARA, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA SRI.C.A.NAVAS SMT.C.S.SIMI SRI.P.A.SHAJI SAMAD SRI.T.K.SASIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT- 685051. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER APPEALS, KOLLAM - 689301. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MARARIKKULAM NORTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 683011. 4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 683011. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SD WPC NO. 31755/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 COPY OF THE ASSSESSMENT ORDER NO. 32040859509/2010-2011 DATED 03.10.2011 P2 COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 04.11.2011 UNDER SECTION OF R.R. ACT P3 COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE NO. 2011/45322/4 DATED 04.11.2011 UNDER SECTION 7 OF R.R. ACT P4 COPY OF THE STATUTORY APPEAL DATED 19.11.2011 P5 COPY OF THE CHELAN RECEIPT DATED 17.11.2011 P6 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 19.11.2011 P7 COPY OF THE CHELAN RECEIPT DATED 17.11.2011 P8 COPY OF THE DELAY PETITION DATED 19.11.2011 P9 COPY OF THE CHELAN RECEIPT DATED 17.11.2011 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE SD S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.31755 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 appeal along with Ext.P8 application to condone delay and Ext.P6 stay petition. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that before the appellate authority could consider the interim applications, the 1st respondent has initiated recovery proceedings for recovery of the tax disputed in the appeal. The petitioner submits that it is unjust to enforce the recovery proceedings before the appellate authority could consider the interim applications. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. I am also of opinion that before the appellate authority could consider the interim applications, it is unjust to initiate coercive recovery proceedings. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The 2nd respondent appellate authority shall consider W.P.(C)No.31755/11 2 Exts.P8 and P6 applications together. If the appellate authority is inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal, the orders shall also be passed on Ext.P6 stay petition. This shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till then, coercive recovery proceedings for recovery of the tax disputed in the appeal shall be kept in abeyance. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.31755/11 3