High Court Kerala High Court

K.Ashraf vs Intelligence Officer (Ib) Ii on 28 December, 2010

Kerala High Court
K.Ashraf vs Intelligence Officer (Ib) Ii on 28 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 38703 of 2010(K)


1. K.ASHRAF, PROPRIETOR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB) II,
                       ...       Respondent

2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB) I,

3. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC),

4. THE DY. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),

5. THE INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :28/12/2010

 O R D E R
                       C.K.ABDUL RAHIM, J
                    -----------------------------------
                     W.P.(C) No.38703 OF 2010
          --------------------------------------------------------
         DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010



                            JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by Exts.P1(a) to P1(c) orders imposing

penalty and Ext.P1(d) order of assessment, the petitioner

had preferred statutory appeals before the 4th respondent

as evidenced from Exts.P2(a) to P2(d). Three of the appeals

were filed along with petitions seeking condonation of

delay, as per Exts.P3(a), P3(b) and P3(c). Exts.P4(a) to

P4(d) are the stay petitions filed along with the appeals.

2. According to the petitioner, the appeals and

accompanying applications are pending disposal before the

4th respondent. Grievances of the petitioner is that without

considering pendency of the appeals, coercieve steps has

now been initiated on the basis of Exts.P5(a) to Ext.P5(c)

revenue recovery notices. Hence, the petitioner seeks to

restrain the recovery steps, till the disposal of the appeals.

3. Having considered pendency of the statutory

appeals before the authority concerned, I am of the view

W.P.(C) No.38703/2010
2

that, the writ petition can be disposed of, directing that

authority to expedite the matter.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing

the 4th respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P3(a)

to Ext.P3(c), delay condonation applications, after affording

an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as

possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the

date of receipt of the copy of the judgment. If delay is

condoned and appeals are registered, then the 4th

respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 series

stay petitions, simultaneously.

5. Till such time orders are passed by the 4th

respondent as directed above, recovery of amounts covered

under Ext.P1 series orders, which is initiated on the basis of

Ext.P5(a) to Ext.P5(c) notices, shall be kept in abeyance.

6. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment

before the 4th respondent, for compliance.

Sd/-

(C.K.ABDUL RAHIM)
JUDGE
SS/-