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. 22944 of 2011(P) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.M. PARIMALA, M/S. VINEETH AGENCIES, GURUVAYOOR. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAGHUNATH, SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KUNNAMKULAM - 680 503, COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE. 2. KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SALES TAX COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM - 682 015. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER OFFICE (KVT) THRISSUR – 680 125. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/09/2011, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 22945 OF 2011 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 22944 of 2011(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 2005.06 DATED 25/11/2009. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 2006.07 DATED 25/11/2009. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER IN KVAT NOS.686/10 & 687/10 DATED 03/01/2011. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE SECOND APPEAL FILED AGAINST EXT.P1 ORDER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE SECOND APPEAL FILED AGAINST EXT.P2 ORDER. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED ALONG WITH EXT.P4 APPEAL. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED ALONG WITH EXT.P5 APPEAL. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) Nos. 22944, 22945, 23047, 23058 & 23992 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 5th day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T In these writ petitions, the petitioners are appellants who filed second appeals before the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order of the First Appellate Authorities. Along with the appeals, they have filed stay petitions seeking stay of recovery of disputed tax. They are aggrieved by the delay in considering the stay applications by the Tribunal. 2. When these matters first came up for admission, I had instructed the learned Government Pleader to get instruction as to what is the delay by the Tribunal in disposing of the stay applications. It is submitted before me that the Tribunal is over-burdened with work and that is why the Tribunal is unable to dispose of the stay applications expeditiously. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Whether the appellants are entitled to stay or not is a question which the Tribunal has to consider in accordance with the facts and circumstances of each case. But, certainly, the petitioners have a right to get their stay applications considered expeditiously at least before the assessing authority initiates revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of the disputed tax. Therefore, I am of opinion that on each day of sitting, the Tribunal should bestow some part of their time exclusively for considering stay applications. The learned Government Pleader after getting instructions from the Government Pleader W.P(C) Nos. 22944, 22945, 23047, 23058 & 23992 of 2011 -: 2 :- appearing before the Tribunal, submits that the Tribunal is taking expeditious steps to see that stay applications are considered expeditiously. 5. Having heard both sides, I direct the Tribunal to devise a procedure by which the stay applications filed by the appellants can be considered at least within 2 weeks from the date of filing the stay applications. In these cases, the stay applications filed by the respective petitioners shall be posted and disposed of in the next sitting of the Tribunal after the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/