IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2011 / 30TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1443 of 2011(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- STEPHEN FRANCIS,PROPRIETOR,J.F.TRADE LINKS,VAYALINKAL HOUSE,NETHAJI ROAD,PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEAL), COMMERCIAL TAXES,KOLLAM-691001. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PUNALUR-689706. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.1443 of 2011-E ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T Against Ext.P2 order of assessment, the petitioner had approached the 1st respondent by filing Ext.P4 statutory appeal. Ext.P9 is the stay petition filed along with the appeal. It is stated that the appeal as well as the stay petition are pending consideration and disposal before the 1st respondent. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that, the transaction referred to as Sl.No.5 among the alleged unaccounted purchases, which is a transaction effected by the consignnor M/s.Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. is only a mistake. Documents were produced to show that the consignor had clarified that the goods in question was not supplied to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, inspite of producing all the relevant documents to substantiate the above contentions, the assessing authority has not considered the same. It is also contended that W.P(C) No.1443 of 2011-E 2 excluding the liability with respect to the above said transaction, there is not dispute with respect to the assessment in question. 3. However, I notice that the matter is now in seizin of the statutory appellate authority. Hence I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the appellate authority to take appropriate steps for disposal of the matter on an early basis. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9 stay petition 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. Needless to say that while considering the question regarding granting of interim relief, the 1st respondent shall take note of the above narrated contentions raised by the petitioner. 5. Till such time orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above, the amounts covered under W.P(C) No.1443 of 2011-E 3 Ext.P2, which is demanded through Ext.P3 notice, shall be kept in abeyance. 6. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab