IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 15902 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ROCKWELL INDUSTRIES LTD., 6-3-883/2/A, 3RD FLOOR, TEJASWI PLAZA, PANJAGUTTA, HYDERABAD-82, REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE MANAGER, SUSHEEL KUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SALES TAX OFFICER (ENQUIRY), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KANNUR. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. M. C .K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 15902 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 26th May, 2010 J U D G M E N T Being aggrieved of Ext. P2 order imposing penalty upon the petitioner, passed by the first respondent, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 appeal, along with Ext. P3(a) petition for stay. The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of the coercive steps being pursued in the meanwhile, without any regard to the pendency of the said proceedings and hence is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings are pending before the second respondent. The petitioner has already furnished the requisite bank guarantee as borne by Ext. P1, which is still valid. This being the position, there cannot be any apprehension for the respondents as to the scope of realisation of the amount stated as due from the petitioner. In the said circumstances, the learned Counsel seeks for a direction to be given to the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P3 appeal in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, simultaneously assuring W.P.(C) No. 15902 OF 2010 2 that proper steps will be taken to have the Bank Guarantee renewed, if it is not done already. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well 4. Even though the validity of the Bank Guarantee shown in Ext. P1 is till 10.03.2010, the petitioner has specifically averred in paragraph No.3 (Page No.4) that the bank guarantee was renewed on 09.03.2010. In the said circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider and pass final orders in Ext.P3 appeal, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that no coercive steps shall be pursued against the petitioner during the pendency of the said appeal, subject to the condition that the petitioner ensures that Ext. P1 Bank Guarantee stands valid and renewed during the period in question. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk