IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 22ND MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1111 of 2011(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER:- ------------------ A.K. MUSTHAFA, THAVALAM HOUSE, KARASSERY.P.O, MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN PURAYIDAM SMT.MABLE.C.KURIAN RESPONDENTS:- --------------------- 1. THE DY. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. 2. INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SALES TAX COMPLEX, JAWAHAR NAGAR, CALICUT - 673 006. 3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 4TH CIRCLE, SALES TAX COMPLEX, JAWAHAR NAGAR, CALICUT - 673 006. 4. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.1111 of 2011-L. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th February, 2011. J U D G M E N T This writ petition was filed challenging the revenue recovery steps initiated for realising the amount of penalty imposed on the petitioner. Challenge is made on the ground that the revenue recovery steps were pursued even without serving a copy of the order of penalty, in spite of request made by the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P4. 2. During pendency of the writ petition, a copy of the order imposing penalty was served on the petitioner and the petitioner had filed statutory appeal against the said order. Ext.P5 is the appeal filed by the petitioner before the first respondent. The appeal was filed along with a petition seeking condonation of delay, as evidenced by Ext.P6. The petitioner had also filed a stay petition along with the appeal as per Ext.P7. Under such circumstance, the WP(C).No.1111 of 2011-L. 2 petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the appeal and till then to restrain the recovery steps. 3. Considering the fact that statutory appeal is pending consideration and disposal before the appellate authority, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing that authority to consider the matter on an early basis. 4. Hence the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 application filed for condonation of delay, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as early as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. If the delay is condoned and the appeal is registered, then the first respondent shall consider Ext.P7 stay petition, which is filed along the appeal, and pass appropriate orders thereon, simultaneously. 5. Till such time orders are passed by the first WP(C).No.1111 of 2011-L. 3 respondent as directed above, recovery of amounts covered under the order of penalty, initiated pursuant to Ext.P3 revenue recovery notice, shall be kept in abeyance. The petitioner will produce a copy of this Judgment before the first respondent. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, (Judge) Kvs/-