IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4971 of 2010(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.SHINE FLEXIBLE PRINIT AND PACKS PVT. LTD., NAD.P.O, MANALIMUKKU, MOOLEKKADU, ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR K.RAJAN NAIR. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, III CIRCLE, ALUVA. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERY, COCHIN-2. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.4971 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved of the recovery proceedings initiated invoking the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act as borne in Ext.P1, notwithstanding the pendency of the statutory appeal and the interlocutory applications preferred before the second respondent challenging the impugned assessment orders passed by the first respondent. 2. With regard to the facts and circumstances, it is noted that Ext.P1 series and Ext.P2 series are the concerned assessment orders in respect of different periods under the KGST Act as well as the CST Act, aggrieved of which the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 and P3(a) to P3(f) appeals before the second respondent. Along with the appeals, the petitioner has also preferred Ext.P3(g) to P3(m) petitions for interim stay. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the non-consideration of the appeals as well as the interlocutory applications, while proceeding with the revenue recovery steps, has caused irreparable loss to the petitioner and hence the same is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits W.P(C)No.4971/2010 -:2:- that Ext.P3(e) and P3(f) appeals apparently are belated by virtue of the relevant dates borne out by the records and that there is no case for the petitioner that any petition to condone the delay has been filed before the appellate authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeals have been filed well within time and if at all any defect is pointed out, the petitioner is ready and willing to cure the same by filing necessary applications in that regard. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to file interlocutory application for condonation of delay, if any of the appeals preferred by the petitioner is belated in any manner. If any such petition is filed, the second respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders thereon and also on Exts.P3(g) to P3(m) petitions for stay, of course, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Till such orders are passed on the above proceedings, all further recovery steps pursuant to Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge ahg. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.4971 of 2010 ----------------------------------- JUDGMENT 16th February, 2010