IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 6TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29857 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.MALABAR HOSPITALS(P)LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 (REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR), RAJEEV GANDHI BY PASS ROAD, KARUVAMBRAM P.O., MANJERI-676123. BY ADV. SRI.M.AJAY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, COMMERCIAL TAXES COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI- 682 013. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (I.B.), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MALAPPURAM- 676 505. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM-676 121. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.29857 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Aggrieved by Ext.P2 order imposing penalty under Section 67(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, the petitioner had preferred statutory appeal before the 1st respondent, as per Ext.P3. Along with the appeal, application for stay was filed under Ext.P4 and an application for early hearing was also filed as per Ext.P5. Grievance of the petitioner is that despite pendency of the appeal and the accompanying applications, recovery steps are now being pursued by issuing Ext.P7 demand notice. Therefore the petitioner seeks direction for an early disposal of the appeal and till then to restrain the recovery steps. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that the impugned order imposing penalty was issued on the premise that the petitioner is conducting business without taking registration. It is stated that the petitioner had applied for registration and the said application was kept pending indefinitely by the respondent, till Ext.P1 order issued on 11.6.2008, through which the application was rejected. 3. However, since the statutory appeal is pending consideration and disposal before the appellate authority, I am W.P.(C).29857/10-F -2- not entering upon any finding regarding merits of the matter. It is for the petitioner to urge such contentions before the appellate authority, and the appellate authority should take note of such contentions, while considering granting of interim relief. Considering pendency of the appeal and the accompanying application I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of on issuing directions to the 1st respondent to expedite the matter. 4. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 application for stay, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. Till such time orders are passed by the 1st respondent as directed above, recovery of amount covered under Ext.P2, which is now initiated pursuant to Ext.P7, shall be kept in abeyance. The petitioner will produce a copy of the judgment before the 1st respondent. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb