IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21744 of 2011(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ANUSOOYA,D/O.LAKSHMI,RESIDING AT S.A.VIHAR,MEENAD,KOLLAM. BY SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON, SRI.JIBU P THOMAS, SRI.P.S.APPU, SRI.A.R.NIMOD, SRI.C.A.ANOOP, SRI.MATHEWS RAJU. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P.O – 695 001. 2. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,P.O.KOLLAM – 691 001. 3. THE SALES TAX OFFICER,III CIRCLE, P.O.KOLLAM.- 691 001. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,(R.R), P.O.KOLLAM -691 001. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.21744/2011-P: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR 1999-2000 DTD. 29/11/2003. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R.2. DTD. 15/01/2005. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. DTD.05/08/2011. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL DTD. 05/08/2011. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY DTD. 05/08/2011. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.S. NO. 20/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE OF KOLLAM DTD. 07/12/2004. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R.4. DTD. 27/07/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 21744 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 10th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Against assessment orders under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, the petitioner suffered an adverse order in appeal. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal along with an application to condone delay as well as a stay petition. The petitioner's grievance is that the Tribunal is not considering the stay petition. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “(i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P3 appeal and Exts.P4 and P5 applications for condonation of delay and for stay on merit expeditiously after affording to the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard; (ii) call for the records leading to the issue of Ext.P7 demand notice by the fourth respondent and quash the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction. 2. The learned Government Pleader submits that the appeal is filed with a petition to condone delay of more than six years and therefore, this Court should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Having heard both sides, I am of opinion that the petitioner is certainly entitled to have her application considered in accordance with law. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent-Tribunal to consider and pass orders on Exts.P4 and P5, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 2 ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge