High Court Kerala High Court

I.P.Ruby Latex (P) Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Commercial … on 18 May, 2010

Kerala High Court
I.P.Ruby Latex (P) Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Commercial … on 18 May, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 14992 of 2010(Y)


1. I.P.RUBY LATEX (P) LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS),

3. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER(IB)-1,

4. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.RAMADAS

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :18/05/2010

 O R D E R
                   P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
             ..............................................................................
                      W.P.(C) No.14992 OF 2010
              .........................................................................
                        Dated this the 18th May, 2010



                                   J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved of the course and procedure

pursued by the third respondent while passing Ext.P1 order

imposing penalty upon the petitioner, which has already been

challenged by Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 petition for stay,

which are pending consideration before the third respondent. It

is also contended that the course pursued by the very same

officer is diametrically opposed to the course pursued by the

very same officer earlier. To prove the said contention, the

petitioner has produced Ext.P6 order passed by the v ery same

officer. The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved of the

steps stated as pursued against him, as borne by Ext.P4.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances, particularly

the divergent course pursued, this Court finds that the matter

W.P.(C) No.14992 OF 2010

2

requires to be considered and finalised by the second

respondent in the appeal, more so, when the actual liability is

stated as cleared by the petitioner.

4. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to pass

final orders on Ext.P2 appeal, in accordance with law, after

giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from

the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Till such orders

are passed in the appeal, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.

P1 and P4 shall be kept in abeyance.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

lk