IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 281 of 2009(H) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- GEORGE.C.MUTHOLY, PROPRIETOR, NATIONAL TRADERS, RUBBER TRADERS, ELIKKULAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BOBBY JOHN SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THALASSERY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KANNUR. 3. THE KERALA STATE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 281 OF 2009 H ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 8th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Prayer in the writ petition is as follows: “ To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 1st respondent to keep in abeyance all further recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 order till the disposal of Ext.P3 appeal.” 2. Petitioner preferred a second appeal in which an interim order was passed which is not produced along with the writ petition. The interim order is dated 9.12.2008. As per which, stay was granted on condition that the petitioner remits Rs.6 lakhs. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was unable to pay the money. Accordingly, he requested the Tribunal to take up the appeal itself and the Tribunal took the appeal for final hearing on 29.12.2008. It is further contended that, on 29.12.2008, the appeal was fully heard and reserved for orders. In the meantime, recovery steps are taken and the petitioner accordingly seeks the WPC.281/09 : 2 : prayer which I have already quoted. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this is a case where there is no liability as the petitioner is the last purchaser and the petitioner has produced Form 25 declaration also. Having heard the case, I would think that there is no need for this court to entertain this writ petition. This is a case where there is an order of stay granted by the Tribunal. Admittedly, the petitioner has failed to comply with the order. The petitioner made a request for hearing and the Tribunal heard the appeal and reserved it for orders. If, in the meantime, recovery steps are taken, I do not think this court to interfere with the matter. It is open to the petitioner to bring it to the notice of the Tribunal and seek appropriate relief. Without prejudice to such right, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE