IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37460 of 2010(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S.A.G.M. CONSTRUCTIONS (P)LTD., KUNNATHURVEEDU, PALAKKAD, A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR DR.P.G.MENON. BY ADVS. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN SMT.G.DEEPA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (LUXURY TAX), COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD.PIN- 678 001 2. THE DY.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM.682 015 3. THE INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. ALLEPPEY DISTRICT.PIN- 678 001 4. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. PIN- 695 001 R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.37460 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The petitioner had preferred Ext.P7 to P10 appeals before the 2nd respondent against Ext.P3 to P6 orders of assessments issued under the provisions of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976. According to the petitioner, the assessments were completed by denying an adjournment sought for by the petitioner to file objections to the proposal and without affording a personal hearing. It is contended that the assessments were completed on the basis of an alleged hearing in which a former Director of the company had participated. The petitioner points out various aspects in order to challenge sustainability of the assessments. Eventhough the petitioner had filed Ext.P11 to P14 stay petitions and Ext.P15 to P18 early hearing petitions, the matter was not considered by the 2nd respondent, is the contention. At present, the petitioner is aggrieved by coercive steps of recovery initiated. It is stated that the Managing Director of the petitioner company, who is a practicing Physician, is being harassed by the authorities by threatening with attachment of the personal belongings. Under such circumstances the petitioner seeks direction to interfere with the W.P.(C).37460/10-F -2- recovery steps till the disposal of the appeals. 2. Having considered the fact that Ext.P7 to P10 appeals are pending consideration and disposal before the 2nd respondent, I am not inclined to examine merits of the contentions raised. On the other hand, I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the appeals on an early basis. 3. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 to P10 appeals, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. Till such time the appeals are disposed of by the 2nd respondent as directed above, recovery of amounts covered under Ext.P3 to P6 orders of assessments, which are now initiated on the basis of Ext.P2 series notices, shall be kept in abeyance, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting 1/4th of the amounts due and on furnishing Security Bond for the balance amount, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb