IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7359 of 2010(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.R.F.MOTORS(P)LTD., IST FLOOR, SKYLINE GATE WAY APARTMENTS, PATHADIPPALAM, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-23, REP. BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (FIN & ADMN.), P.SREEKUMAR. BY ADV. SMT.C.S.SUJAMMA SRI.V.DEVANANDA NARASIMHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(ASSMT.), SPECIAL CIRCLE-III, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 7359 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of Ext.P7 order passed by the 2nd respondent, whereby the Interlocutory Application preferred by the petitioner for stay pending consideration of the statutory appeal has been dismissed as per order dated 01.02.2010, holding that no prima facie case has been established by the petitioner, while the appeal is still to be considered and finalized. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Obviously, there is clear finding by the appellate authority that the petitioner has not established any prima facie case; which stated as the reason for dismissing the I.A. for stay. This being the position, why the statutory appeal as borne by Ext.P3 has been kept in abeyance is not discernible from the records or the discussion made by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P7. Because of the course and conduct being pursued by the 2nd respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that the petitioner is not in a position to avail further statutory remedy and hence has approached this Court seeking for appropriate relief. 4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the WP(C) No.7359/2010 2 respondents submits that the issue involved is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court reported in Kulathunkal Motors Vs. Sales Tax Officers and others (2007) 10 VST 195, which however is sought to be rebutted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that in the case considered by this Court as above, there was no relevant certificate so as to sustain the case projected therein by the assessee, whereas in the instant case, it is fully supported by all the requisite materials; which hence stands on a different footing. This however is a matter to be considered and finalized by the appellate authority, since Ext.P3 appeal preferred by the petitioner is still pending consideration and yet to be disposed of. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and pass final orders on Ext.P3 appeal, in accordance with law and also in the light of the binding judicial precedents. This shall be finalized after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that all further coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P5 shall be kept in abeyance, till such final orders are passed as above, subject to the condition that the petitioner satisfies 40% of the amount due within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc