IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 7TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29629 of 2010(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S.PERIYAR CEMENTS (P) LTD., NIDA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY P.K.THOMAS, DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON, SMT.MEERA V.MENON, SRI.MAHESH V.MENON. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, PALAKKAD. R1 TO R3 BY SRI. K.P. PRADEEP, SPL. GOVT. PLEADER (FINANCE). THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.29629 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 29th September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, a private limited company, has been assessed to tax by the first respondent as per Ext.P1. Ext.P1 order was modified by Ext.P2. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P2 modified order of Ext.P1, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 appeal. However, there occurred a delay of 16 days for filing Ext.P3 appeal and therefore, Ext.P4 application for condonation of delay has also been filed along with Ext.P3 appeal. That apart, the petitioner has filed Ext.P5 stay petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that pending decision on Ext.P4 delay petition and consequently Ext.P5 stay petition, steps have been taken by the assessing authority to implement Ext.P2 order by resorting to revenue recovery steps. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner has preferred an appeal against Ext.P2 order. On account of delay in filing the same, the application for condonation of delay viz., Ext.P4 has also been filed. When the appeal and such petitions are pending consideration, I am of the view that there was no reason for taking hasty action for implementing Ext.P2 order by WP(C).No.29629/2010 2 resorting to revenue recovery proceedings. In view of the above circumstances, to enable the petitioner to move the appellate authority for considering the delay petition and based on its outcome, for considering Ext.P5 stay petition, two weeks time is granted and during which time all coercive steps taken by the respondents for implementation of Ext.P2 shall be kept in abeyance. Subject to the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS