IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2011 / 12TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26490 of 2011(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.ABDUL KALAM AZAD, PROPRIETOR, B.N.BABY HALL, MENONPARA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON, SMT.MEERA V.MENON, SRI.MAHESH V.MENON. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD - 678 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM - 682 013. 3. INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD - 678 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SHAMSUDHEEN.V.K. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.26490/2011 I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 21/07/2011. P2: COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 28/09/2011. P3: COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 28/09/2011. P4: COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 28/09/2011. P5: COPY OF NOTICE IN FORM NO.1 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 23/09/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 26490 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 4th day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T Against Ext. P1 penalty order, the petitioner has filed Ext. P2 appeal along with Ext. P3 petition to condone the delay and Ext. P4 petition for stay of recovery proceedings. The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by the assessing authority for coercive recovery of the disputed tax. The petitioner seeks stay of recovery till the appellate authority gets an opportunity to consider the stay petition. The learned Government Pleader points out that since there is delay in filing the appeal, the appellate authority cannot consider the stay petition without first considering the petition to condone the delay. 2. After hearing both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The 2nd respondent shall consider the petitions to condone the delay as well as the stay petitions together within one month. If the 2nd respondent is inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeals, the 2nd respondent shall consider and pass orders on the stay petitions as well. Till disposal of the stay petitions, the coercive recovery proceedings shall shall be kept in abeyance. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/