IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2011 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5404 of 2011(A) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JAYALAKSHMI,M.G.ROAD,ERNAKULAM, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,SRI.N.NARYANA KAMATH. BY ADVS. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN, SMT.G.DEEPA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,SQUAD NO.111, COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM – 682 015. 2. THE KERALA VALUE ADDED APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM – 682 015. 3. THE INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM – 682 015. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM – 695 081. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 5404 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Against Ext.P2 order imposing penalty, the petitioner had approached the first appellate authority. The appeal filed in this regard was dismissed through Ext.P3 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P3 further appeal was filed before the 2nd respondent Tribunal, as evidenced from Ext.P4. Ext.P5 is the stay petition filed along with the appeal. It is stated that during the pendency of the first appeal this court had modified the interim order passed by the appellate authority, through Ext.P6 judgment, and the petitioner was directed to remit 25% of the amount due. It is stated that in compliance of the said direction 25% of the amount of penalty has already been remitted. Grievance of the petitioner is that, without taking into consideration of the above aspects, coercive steps of recovery has now been threatened for realising the balance amount without considering pendency of the matter before the 2nd respondent Tribunal. 2. Having considered pendency of the statutory appeal WP(C) .5404/2011 2 before the 2nd respondent Tribunal, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the Tribunal to expedite the matter. 3. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent Tribunal to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 stay petition after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment . Needless to say that while granting any interim relief, the 2nd respondent Tribunal shall take note of payments already made by virtue of Ext.P6 judgment. 4. Till such time orders are passed by the 2nd respondent Tribunal as directed above, recovery of the amount covered under Exts.P2 shall be kept in abeyance. 5. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .5404/2011 3