IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 20TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4184 of 2010(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M.MURALI, PROPRIETOR, DHANYA AUDITORIUM, MAHADEVIKADU,KARTHIKAPALLY,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS.MR.V.P.SUKUMAR, MR.V.DEVANANDA NARASIMHAM. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER(LT), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES,KOLLAM. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, CHENGANNUR. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 4184 OF 2010 W ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th February, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Proprietor of a Kalyana Mandapam. According to him, the same is situate in a village area of Karthikapally Taluk in Alappuzha district. According to him, since the charges for the Mandapam per day is less than Rs.3,000/-, no luxury tax is payable by him. The first respondent issued notice to the petitioner and completed the assessment for the year 2007-08 fixing the receipt of rent at Rs.7,00,000/-. For the year 2008-09 also the assessment was completed fixing an exorbitant amount as rent. The assessment orders are Exts.P1 and P2. Aggrieved by the assessment orders, the petitioner has filed Exts.P3 and P4 appeals before the second respondent. The appeals are accompanied by Exts.P5 and P6 petitions for condonation of the delay in filing the appeals as well as Exts.P8 and P9 stay petitions. However, no orders have been passed thereon by the second respondent till date. In the meanwhile, as per Ext.P7, Revenue Recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner prays for appropriate directions for stay of the said proceedings. WPC 4184/2010 2 2. In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the delay condonation petitions filed by the petitioner evidenced herein by Exts.P5 and P6 as well as Exts.P8 and P9 stay petitions in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Pending disposal of the stay petitions, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 notice shall remain stayed. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 4184/2010 3 K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: