IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9258 of 2010(F)
1. K.M.MATHEW, KUZHUVOMMANNIL INDUSTRIES,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER - (AA),
4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY,
For Petitioner :SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :06/04/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 9258 OF 2010
.........................................................................
Dated this the 6th April , 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitiioner has approached this Court seeking to
quash Exts. P2 and P3 recovery proceedings stating that the
steps are still to be finalised as directed vide Ext. P5 judgment.
It is stated that the grievance of the petitioner will stand
redressed, once necessary clarifications are given by the
Commissioner of Commercial taxes or suh other appropriate
authorities, before whom the matter is pending.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who
asserts with reference to the statement filed, that the factual
averments raised from the part of the petitioner are not correct
or sustainable .
3. However, on going through the records, this Court finds
that already a direction has been issued vide Ext.P5 judgment,
directing the third respondent therein (Commissioner of
W.P.(C) No. 9258 OF 2010
2
Commercial Taxes/first respondent herein) to pass appropriate
orders on Ext.P8 petition filed therein seeking for clarification,
within a specified time and till such proceedings were finalised,
the steps for recovery were ordered to be stayed for a period of
two months. There is no case for the respondents that the
concerned respondent has complied with the direction given by
this Court vide Ext. P5 judgment, giving necessay clarifications.
4. The case now projected from the part of the third
respondent is that (as revealed from para 12 of the statement),
filing a petition under Section 94 of the KVAT Act will not in any
way help the petitioner. This Court does not propose to go into
the merits or demerits, as to the factual position involved. Taking
note of the mandate given by this Court vide Ext.P5, the first
respondent shall cause the matter to be finalised giving effect
to the verdict as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within
‘six’ weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment,
after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The
second respondent is directed to consider and finalise the
appeal, the I.A. preferred for stay and also the I.A, to condone
W.P.(C) No. 9258 OF 2010
3
the delay, if any, in accordance with law and also with reference
to the order to be passed by the Commissioner or such other
authority before whom, the petition for clarification is pending.
The proceedings as above shall be finalised within one month
from the date of finalisation of the proceedings by the
Commissioner giving necessary clarification. All coercive steps
stated as being pursued shall be kept in abeyance in the
meanwhile.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk