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


Kerala High Court
Satheek.L. vs Commercial Tax Officer (Works … on 20 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 37510 of 2010(K)


1. SATHEEK.L., AKKAVILA, ERAVIPURAM P.O.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WORKS CONTRACTS)
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DY.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),

3. THE INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :20/12/2010

 O R D E R
                   C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.

                -------------------------------------------
                  W.P.(C).No.37510 of 2010
                -------------------------------------------

          Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010


                        J U D G M E N T

———————-

Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment the

petitioner had preferred statutory appeal before the 2nd

respondent as evidenced from Ext.P3. The appeal was

filed along with Ext.P3 petition seeking condonation of

delay. Along with appeal the petitioner had also filed

Ext.P4 and P5 petitions seeking stay and early hearing,

respectively. According to the petitioner, the appeal as

well as the accompanying applications are pending

consideration and disposal before the 2nd respondent.

Grievance of the petitioner is that without considering

pendency of the appeal recovery steps has now been

initiated on the basis of Ext.P6 notice issued under the

provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968.

Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this court to

restrain the recovery steps till the disposal of the appeal.

2. Considering pendency of the statutory appeal I

W.P.(C).37510/10-K -2-

am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of

directing the appellate authority to take expeditious steps

for consideration of the matter.

3. In the result the writ petition is disposed of

directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on

Ext.P3 application filed seeking condonation of delay, after

affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as

early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

4. If delay is condoned and appeal is registered on

files, then the 2nd respondent shall consider and pass orders

on Ext.P4 stay petition, simultaneously.

5. Till such time orders are passed by the 2nd

respondent as directed above, recovery of amounts covered

under Ext.P1 which is initiated on the basis of Ext.P6 notice

shall be kept in abeyance.

6. Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment

before the 2nd respondent.

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

okb


Leave a Reply

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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.178 seconds.