IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21180 of 2010(V) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- PRAKASH KOSHY BENJAMIN ,PROPRIETOR, ALPINE HOMES, ASSOCIATED CHAMBERS, TEMPLE ROAD, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER ,SQUAD NO.I, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 645. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, (WORKS CONTRACT), KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 3. THE DY. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), KOLLAM - 691 001. 4. KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 5. THE DY.TAHSILDAR, (RR) TALUK OFFICE,THIRUVALLA 689 101. 6. THE TAHSILDAR, THIRUVALLA 689 101. 7. THE MANAGER, SOUTHE INDIAN BANK, KUTTAPUZHA, THIRUVALLA 689 101. 8. THE MANAGER FEDERAL BANK ,THIRUVALLA 689 101. R7 BY ADV. SRI. K.K.JOHN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.21180 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2010 JUDGMENT Though Ext.P1 order imposing penalty by the 1st respondent and Ext.P3 assessment made by the 2nd respondent were subjected to challenge by filing separate appeals in respect of the assessment years, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, the same did not turn to be fruitful and the appeals were rejected, dismissed as per common order vide Ext.P5. Being aggrieved of the same, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P6(a) and P6(b) appeals, along with Exts.P7(a) and P7(b) interlocutory applications for stay, which are pending consideration before the fourth respondent. However, without any regard to the pendency of the above proceedings, coercive steps are being pursued, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, the fourth respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P7(a) and P7 (b) petitions for stay in accordance with law, as expeditiously as Wpc 21180/2010 2 possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that till such orders are passed in the interlocutory applications for stay, all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned orders shall be kept in abeyance. It is also made clear that implementation of Ext.P10 shall be subject to orders to be passed by the fourth respondent as aforesaid. Writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE lgk