IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST APRIL 2009 / 1ST VAISAKHA 1931 WP(C).No. 12453 of 2009(B) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- MALABAR HATCHERY (P) LTD., THENKARA P.O., MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI.P.U.KRISHNAN. BY ADV. MR.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.V, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD. 3. THE DY.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM. 4. INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.12453 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a dealer registered under the Kerala Value Added Tax on the files of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner is engaged in the purchase of chicks, rearing them in their farm and selling the same as poultry. The Managing Director of the petitioner Company runs another proprietory concern also. Seeking to club the transactions of both, penalty has been imposed on the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has tried to evade tax. Against the order of penalty, the petitioner has filed Ext.P3 appeal/revision along with Ext.P4 stay petition before the. The petitioner's grievance now is that even before consideration of Ext.P4 stay application, Ext.P5 revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated for recovery of the disputed penalty. The petitioner's contention is that without passing orders on Ext.P4 stay petition, it is unjust to initiate coercive proceedings for recovery of the disputed penalty. W.P.(c)No.12453/09 2 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents also. 3. I am of opinion that before proceeding further with coercive recovery proceedings, the appellate authority should pass orders on Ext.P4 stay petition filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The 3rd respondent shall pass orders on Ext.P4 stay petition submitted by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till orders are thus passed, further coercive proceedings for recovery of the disputed penalty including Ext.P5 shall be kept in abeyance. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.12453/09 3