High Court Kerala High Court

Getty Joseph vs Commercial Tax Officer on 19 October, 2010

Kerala High Court
Getty Joseph vs Commercial Tax Officer on 19 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 31833 of 2010(D)


1. GETTY JOSEPH,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

3. TAHSILDAR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :19/10/2010

 O R D E R
                     C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J
                ---------------------------------------
                  W.P(C) No.31833 of 2010-D
                ----------------------------------------
          Dated this the 19th day of October, 2010.

                         J U D G M E N T

Aggrieved by Ext.P1 and P2 orders of assessments

completed with respect to the years 2006-07 and 2007-08,

the petitioner had approached the first appellate authority.

In Exts.P3 and P3(a) orders issued by the first appellate

authority, certain reliefs were granted to the petitioner.

From Exts.P3 and P3(a) orders the petitioner had filed

further appeals before the second respondent Tribunal, as

per Exts.P4 and P5. Exts.P4(a) and P5(a) are the stay

petitions filed along with the appeals. It is stated that the

appeals and the stay petitions are pending consideration

and disposal before the Tribunal. But the first respondent

had now issued Exts.P8 and P9 modified orders on the basis

of Exts.P3 and P3(a) and recovery steps has now been

initiated on issuing notice under Exts.P6, P6(a), P7 and P7

(a). Under the above circumstances, the petitioner seeks

direction for disposal of the appeal and till then to restrain

W.P(C) No.31833 of 2010-D 2

recovery steps.

2. Having considered the fact that statutory appeals

are pending disposal before the second respondent

Tribunal, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be

disposed of directing that Tribunal to expedite the matter.

3. Under the above circumstances the writ petition

is disposed of directing the second respondent Tribunal to

consider and pass orders on Exts.P4(a) and P5(a) stay

petitions filed along with the appeals, after affording an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as early as possible,

at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

4. Till such time orders are passed by the Tribunal

as directed above, recovery steps now initiated pursuant to

Exts.P6, P6(a), P7 and P7(a) shall be kept in abeyance.

5. The petitioner will produce a copy of this

judgment before the second respondent.

C.K.ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
ab