IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2011 / 29TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 28043 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.OCEANUS DWELLINGS (P) LTD., PRIYADARSINI NAGAR, PUTHOOR, PALAKKAD - 678 001, REPRESENTED BY K.A.FRANCIS, REGIONAL MANAGER, BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WORKS CONTRACT), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD - 678001. 2. DY.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM - 682013. 3. INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD - 678 001. BY GOVT.PLEADER, SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SU W.P.C.NO.28043/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P-1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P-2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P-3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P-4 COPY OF EARLY HEARING PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P-5 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P-6 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P-7 COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P-8 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P-9 COPY OF POSTING NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P-10 COPY OF ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P-11 COPY OF NOTICE IN FORM NO.1 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDANTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE SU S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 28043 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 21st day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T Against both assessment order as well as penalty order, which is an off-shoot of the assessment, which is a best judgment assessment, the petitioner filed appeals. The appeal against the assessment order is pending. Appeal against the penalty order is posted for hearing. According to the petitioner, insofar as the imposition of the penalty is a direct consequence of the assessment, which is also under challenge, if the appeal against the penalty order is disposed of before the appeal against the assessment order is disposed of, that would prejudice the petitioner. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. I am also of opinion that the appellate authority should consider both the appeals together. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on both the appeals against the assessment order as well as the penalty order together, as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/