IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29533 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.O.DEVASSY,THOMSON METALS MALAYATTOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ANGAMALY. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.II, MATTANCHERRY AT KARUKUTTY. 3. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THE COMMERCIAL TAX ,ERNAKULAM. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(REVENUE RECOVERY) TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 29533 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner had filed statutory appeals against Exts.P1 to P3 orders imposing penalty, before the Deputy Commissioner, who is the first appellate authority. The appeals were rejected through a common order (Ext.P4) for the reason that the petitioner had failed to remit the amounts due to the 'Legal Benefit Fund'. Aggrieved by Ext.P4, the petitioner had preferred second appeal before the 3rd respondent Tribunal, as evidenced from Exts.P5 to P7. Along with the appeals, stay petitions are also filed as per Exts.P8 to P10. Grievance of the petitioner is that without considering pendency of the second appeal recovery steps are now being pursued on issuing Exts.P11 to P13 notices. Hence the petitioner seeks direction for restraining the recovery till the disposal of the appeals. 2. Learned Government Pleader appearing on 2 WP(C) No. 29533/2010 behalf of the respondents had pointed out that the first appeals were only rejected for non payment of amounts due to the 'Legal Benefit Fund', and in such case maintainability of second appeal before the Tribunal is doubtful. 3. However, since the matter in seizin of the Tribunal, I am of the view that the Writ Petition can be disposed of directing early consideration of the matter by the Tribunal 4. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders either on Exts.P8 to P10 interim applications filed seeking stay, or on Exts.P5 to P7 appeals, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. Till such time orders are passed by the Tribunal as directed above, recovery of amounts covered under Exts.P1 to P3, which is now initiated pursuant to Exts.P11 3 WP(C) No. 29533/2010 to P13 notices, shall be kept in abeyance. 6. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the Tribunal. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc