IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2011 / 24TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 19221 of 2011(C) ----------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- M/S.INTER CONTINENTAL TRADERS, BIG BAZAR, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, U.R.SURESH KUMAR. BY ADVS. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SMT.K.HYMAVATHY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASMT)-III, SPECIAL CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682 015. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 19221 of 2011(C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2003-04 DATED 22.06.2010. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2003-04 DATED 11.07.2011. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2003-04 DATED 11.07.2011. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2003-04 DATED 11.07.2011. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE EARLY HEARING PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2003-04 DATED 11.07.2011. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM NO. IV ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 07.02.2011 EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM NO. 24 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 07.02.2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 19221 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 15th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T Against Ext. P1 assessment order the petitioner filed Ext. P2 appeal along with Ext. P3 application to condone the delay and Ext. P4 petition for stay. The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by the assessing authority to recover the disputed tax. The petitioner seeks stay of recovery till the appellate authority gets an opportunity to consider the stay petition. The learned Government Pleader points out that since there is delay in filing the appeal, the appellate authority cannot consider the stay petition without first considering the petition to condone the delay. 2. After hearing both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The 2nd respondent shall consider the petition to condone the delay as well as the stay petition together within one month. If the 2nd respondent is inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal, the 2nd respondent shall consider and pass orders on the stay petition as well. Till disposal of the stay petition, the coercive recovery proceedings shall shall be kept in abeyance. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/