IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2303 of 2010(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.NIRMAL TYRES (APPLIANCES DIVISION), NIRMAL ARCADE, BY-PASS ROAD, ERANJIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673006, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REP.BY ITS PARTNER, SRI.C.VIJAYAN. BY ADV. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER (II), SPECIAL CIRCLE-I, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE DY.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE SALES TAX OFFICER (RECOVERY), OFFICE OF THE DY.COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 2303 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 25th January , 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenging Ext. P2 assessment order passed by the first respondent, the petitioner has preferred Ext. P3 appeal, along with Ext. P4 petition for stay, which are stated as pending before the second respondent. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, it is without any regard to the pendency of the said proceedings, that Ext. P1 notice has been issued by the third respondent invoking the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act, seeking to realize the amount allegedly due from the petitioner. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in respect of the previous years, the issue projected by the petitioner had been accepted and Ext.P5 order had been passed by the second respondent. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the W.P.(C) No. 2303 OF 2010 2 respondents submits that, by virtue of conspicuous difference with reference to the relevant assessment years, Ext.P5 order is not applicable to the case in hand, further adding that the merits of the case will however be caused to be considered and finalized by the appellate authority within a reasonable time . 5. In the above facts and circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P3 and P4, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. However, it is made clear that till such orders are passed on Ext.P4 petition for stay, all further coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk