IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28470 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.A.PAUL, PROPRIETOR, ECONOMY BUILDING MATERIALS, WEST YAKKARA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, FIRST CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. 3. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 4. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.28470 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. With respect to the assessment year 2006-07, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P1 assessment order, imposing additions to the turnover conceded. Against Ext.P1, the petitioner had filed Ext.P2 appeal before the 1st respondent. Ext.P3 is the interim order of stay issued by the 1st respondent wherein conditional stay was granted on payment of 60% of the tax amount in dispute. According to the petitioner the condition had already been complied with. Meanwhile pursuant to interception on a transport of goods effected by the petitioner, he was imposed with penalty to the tune of Rs.5000/- as per Ext.P4 order. The petitioner had filed Ext.P5 appeal against the order imposing penalty, which is pending disposal. Based on the said order the assessment was sought to be revised imposing further additions resulting in additional tax liability to the tune of Rs.44,588/-. Inspite of objection filed by the petitioner revised assessment order was passed as evidenced by Ext.P6. The petitioner had also filed Ext.P7 appeal against the revised assessment order, along with Ext.P8 petition seeking stay. Complaint of the petitioner is that steps for realisation of the W.P.(C).28470/09-C 2 amounts covered under the revised assessment have now been initiated pursuant to issuance of Ext.P9 notice. It is submitted that the amount sought to be recovered under Ext.P9 covers the amount of original assessment with respect to which the appellate authority had already granted stay. Under the above circumstances the petitioner is seeking direction for early disposal of the appeals and to stay the recovery steps till then. 2. Having considered facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the appellate authority to consider and dispose of all the appeals on an early basis. 3. Therefore the 1st respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2, P5 and P7 appeals after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Respondents are directed to keep in abeyance all further steps for recovery of the amounts covered under Ext.P1 and P6 till orders are passed on the appeals, as directed above. The writ petition is disposed of as above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb