M/S. Dinar Electronics vs State Of Kerala on 26 November, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 13583 of 2005(P)


1. M/S. DINAR ELECTRONICS, MAIN BAZAR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, HOSDURG.

3. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY,

4. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.)

5. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SREEPRAKASH K.NAIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :26/11/2010

 O R D E R
                   P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
             ..............................................................................
                      W.P.(C) No.13583 OF 2005
              .........................................................................
                  Dated this the 26th November , 2010



                                   J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to

intercept the coercive proceedings taken under the Revenue

Recovery Act in respect of the sales tax arrears for the

assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 contending that there

is absolutely no rhyme or reason for pursuing such action when

the statutory appeals preferred by the petitioner against the

impugned orders are pending before the Tribunal along with the

application for stay.

2. When the matter came up for consideration before this

Court on 03.05.2005, it was admitted, also granting an interim

stay for ‘three months’; on condition that the petitioner

deposited ` One lakh (for each year) on or before 31.05.2005

and 30.06.2005, making it clear that if any default was

committed in satisfying the deposit, the interim order of stay

W.P.(C) No.13583 OF 2005

2

would stand vacated automatically.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the

learned Government Pleader submits that going by the contents

of the Writ Petition, the appeals were stated as heard by the

Tribunal on 26.02.2005 and that the grievance was with regard

to non-finalisation of the proceedings by passing appropriate

orders in the appeal. It is also stated that the position as on date

is still to be ascertained, as not readily available with both the

sides.

In the above circumstance, this Court does not find it

necessary to retain the case any further. Accordingly, the Writ

Petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to pass

final orders as expeditiously as possible in T.A.No. 557 of 2003, if

the same is still pending.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

lk