Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.


Kerala High Court
Hindustan Plywoods vs The Intelligence Officer(Ib) on 10 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 7768 of 2010(U)


1. HINDUSTAN PLYWOODS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS),

3. THE INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER,

4. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :10/03/2010

 O R D E R
                   P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
             ..............................................................................
                      W.P.(C) No. 7768 OF 2010
              .........................................................................
                      Dated this the 10th March, 2010



                                   J U D G M E N T

Being aggrieved of Ext.P3 order imposing penalty upon the

petitioner passed by the first respondent, the petitioner has

preferred Ext.P4 statutory appeal before the second respondent

along with Ext.P5 petition for stay. The case of the petitioner is

that it is without any regard to the pendency of the said

proceedings that the third respondent has issued Ext.P6

recovery notice under the Revenue Recovery Act , which hence

is sought to be intercepted in this Writ Petition.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who

submits with reference to the materials on record that, even

going by the admitted facts and figures, as reflected from Ext.

P4 appeal, the impugned order was communicated to the

petitioner on 22.12.2009, whereas the appeal proceedings were

filed only on 23.01.2010, i.e. on the next day after thirty days.

This being the position, there is delay in filing the same, submits

the learned Government Pleader .

W.P.(C) No. 7768 OF 2010

2

3. After hearing both the sides, the petitioner is

permitted to file a petition to condone the delay, if the

proceedings are filed belatedly, which shall be done within ten

days. On filing the necessary proceedings as above, the second

respondent shall consider such petition to condone the delay, if

any and also Ext. P3 petition for stay and pass appropriate

orders thereon, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as

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

of receipt of a copy of the judgment . Till such orders are passed

on the petition to condone the delay, to be filed and Ext.P3

petition for stay, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P6 shall

be kept in abeyance.

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

lk


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

89 queries in 0.158 seconds.