IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13621 of 2010(C)
1. JYOTHY LABORATORIES LIMITED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT),
... Respondent
2. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAGHUNATH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :23/04/2010
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN,J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 13621 of 2010
--------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is an assessee on the files of the first
respondent. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order dated 1.3.2010
passed by the first respondent for the month of January, 2010 the
petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal before the second respondent
along with Ext.P3 application seeking stay of collection of the tax
assessed as per Ext.P1. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is
that even before orders are passed on Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3
stay petition, on the instructions of the first respondent, the second
respondent has issued Ext.P4 demand notice under Section 7 of the
Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 for recovery of the tax
assessed as per Ext.P1. In this writ petition, the petitioner
challenges Ext.P4 and seeks a direction to the third respondent to
consider Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition and pass orders
thereon within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. The petitioner
submits if pending disposal of Ext.P2 appeal wherein substantial
contentions have been raised, the tax assessed as per Ext.P1 is
recovered, the petitioner will be put to serious prejudice.
2. Sri. Premjith Nagendran, the learned counsel appearing for
W.P.(C).No.13621/2010
2
the petitioner submitted that in respect of the very same assessee
this Court has in W.P.(C) No.3255 of 2010 and other writ petitions
directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal itself and
had also stayed the recovery of tax assessed on the petitioner
depositing 1/3rd of the tax assessed by the assessing authority. The
learned counsel also submitted that this Court had in the said
judgments also stayed the collection of the balance tax in the event
of the petitioner depositing 1/3rd of the tax assessed as per the
order impugned in the appeals. A copy of the judgment in W.P.(C)
No.3255 of 2010 was also made available for perusal.
3. Sri. K.P.Pradeep Kumar, the learned Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents did not dispute the said submission.
In such circumstances, having regard to the directions issued by this
Court in W.P.(C) No.3255 of 2010, I dispose of this writ petition with
a direction to the third respondent to consider and pass orders on
Ext.P2 appeal in accordance with law, in the event of the petitioner
remitting 1/3rd of the amount due as per Ext.P1 within one month
and furnishes security for the balance amount. On the petitioner
remitting 1/3rd of the amount due as per Ext.P1, the third respondent
W.P.(C).No.13621/2010
3
shall hear the petitioner and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal
expeditiously and in any event within one month thereafter. In the
event of the petitioner remitting 1/3rd of the amount due as per
Ext.P1, the proceedings initiated for recovery of the amounts due as
per Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance till orders are passed on Ext.P2
appeal and communicated to the petitioner.
P.N.RAVINDRAN
(Judge)
vps
W.P.(C).No.13621/2010
4
W.P.(C).No.13621/2010
5