IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2011 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32089 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- N.KRISHNAN, PROPRIETOR, P.V.ORGANIC PRODUCT, THENUR, PAARALI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 678 616. BY ADVS. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN SMT.G.DEEPA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, FIRST CIRCLE, PALAKKAD DIST – 678 001. 2. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, NINAN COMPLEX, METTUPALAYAM, PALAKKAD - 678 001. 3. THE INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD – 678 001. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM – 695 001. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AMV WPC NO.32089 OF 2011 (I) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXT.P-1 COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.18-11-2011 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEARS 2008-09. EXT.P-2 COPY OF THE REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.29-8-2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEARS 2008-09. EXT.P-3 COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DT.4-10-2011 FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEARS 2008-09. EXT.P-4 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DT.4-10-2011 FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEARS 2008-09. EXT.P-5 COPY OF THE EARLY HEARING PETITION DT.4-10-2011 FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P-6 COPY OF THE PETITION DT.4-10-2011 TO CONDONE THE DELAY FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE AMV S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 32089 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 1st day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Against Ext.P2 assessment order, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal along with Ext.P6 petition to condone delay and Ext.P4 stay petition. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that before the appellate authority could consider the interim application, coercive recovery proceedings have been initiated. The petitioner submits that it is unjust to enforce recovery through coercive proceedings when the stay application is still undisposed of. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. Having heard both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The 2nd respondent-appellate authority shall consider Exts.P4 and P6 applications together. If the appellate authority is inclined to condone delay in filing the appeal, he shall pass orders on the stay petition also simultaneously. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till orders are thus passed, further coercive proceedings initiated including revenue recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge - : 2 :-