IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7430 of 2010(C)
1. M/S.KENTON LEISURE SERVICES(P) LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE LUXURY TAX OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS),
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS),
4. THE STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.ANIL D. NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :08/03/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
------------------------
W.P.(C)No. 7430 OF 2010
------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010
JUDGMENT
The case of the petitioner is that challenging assessment of
‘luxury tax’ demanding penalty, the petitioner has filed appeal
along with a petition for stay. However, when the respondents
chose to pursue recovery proceedings without any regard to the
pendency of the said proceedings in the appeal, the petitioner
was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C)
No.34739/2009 which was disposed of as per Ext.P1 judgment,
directing the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate
orders on Exts.P19 to P27 petitions for stay, after affording an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as specified therein and
to keep the recovery proceedings in abeyance till such time. The
second respondent was also directed to issue necessary orders
withdrawing prohibition imposed on the operation of the Bank
account of the petitioner as per Ext.P28, insisting a condition to
the Bank to maintain the balance outstanding in the account as
on that day while permitting future transactions.
2. Coming to the case in hand, the learned counsel for the
WPC No.7430/2010 -2-
petitioner submits that absolutely no order has been passed or
communicated to the petitioner till date, despite the fact that
final hearing of the appeal is already over, pursuant to Ext.P2
notice dated 23/12/2009. The petitioner has now come to
understand that the appellate authority/the third respondent has
finalised the appeal, rejecting the same and it is pursuant to this,
that Ext.P3 order has been issued by way of ‘garnishee
proceedings’. As a result of this, it is submitted by the learned
Counsel that, huge amounts have been appropriated from the
bank account of the petitioner and operations of the bank
account of the petitioner have been made to a standstill, which
hence is sought to be intercepted in this Writ Petition. The
learned Counsel also submits that the respondents are liable to
be compelled to serve a copy of the order, stated as passed in
the concerned appeal, so as to enable the petitioner to pursue
the statutory remedy, without which there is no justification for
proceeding with coercive steps.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the second
respondent/third respondent is directed to serve a copy of the
WPC No.7430/2010 -3-
order stated as passed in the appeal forming the subject matter
of Ext.P2 notice within one week from the date of receipt of a
copy of the judgment. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue
further steps by availing the statutory remedy, approaching the
appropriate authorities in this regard, if aggrieved of the said
order passed by the appellate authority.
5. However, so as to enable the petitioner to pursue such
exercise, the first respondent/concerned authority is directed to
issue necessary orders to the bankers of the petitioner as
mentioned in Ext.P3 that all further proceedings pursuant to
Ext.P3 shall be kept in abeyance for a further period of six weeks.
It is also made clear that appropriation of amount, if any,
pursuant to Ext.P3 will be subject to the result of the appeal to
be filed by the petitioner.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE
dpk