IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH MAY 2011 / 16TH VAISAKHA 1933 WP(C).No. 13050 of 2011(E) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- B.S.RUBBERS, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PLOT, POOVANTHURUTH, KOTTAYAM - 686 012, REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR SRI.K.P.BABU. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.SADASIVAN SRI.JOY P.JOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY (TAXES), GOVERNMANT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. DY. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM - 682 015. 3. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, IIND CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 4. INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. P.K. SHAMSUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.13050 OF 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (KGST Act), 1963. The petitioner is a manufacturer of rubber mats at Industrial Development Plot, Kottayam. For the assessment years 2004-2005, the assessment of the petitioner was completed by the 3rd respondent under Section 17(3) of the KGST Act instead of Section 17D, which according to the petitioner is the provision that is applicable. Therefore, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal challenging the order of assessment before the 2nd respondent. However, the petitioner complains that Ext.P4 proceedings for recovery of the tax assessed has been issued disregarding the pendency of Ext.P2 appeal. According to the petitioner, they have filed Ext.P3 petition for stay along with Ext.P2 appeal. However, no orders have been passed thereon till date. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions for keeping in abeyance W.P.(C)No.13050/11 2 the recovery proceedings until Ext.P2 appeal is finally disposed of. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. Since Ext.P2 appeal as well as Ext.P3 stay petition are pending consideration of the 2nd respondent, it is sufficient that the stay petition is directed to be disposed of on an early date. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 petition for stay in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Pending final orders on Ext.P3, all further proceedings to recover the tax assessed pursuant to Ext.P4 shall remain stayed. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.13050/11 3 W.P.(C)No.13050/11 4