High Court Kerala High Court

Stingle Sebastian vs Commercial Tax Officer on 22 June, 2009

Kerala High Court
Stingle Sebastian vs Commercial Tax Officer on 22 June, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17140 of 2009(J)


1. STINGLE SEBASTIAN, CENTURY SALES &
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

3. INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :22/06/2009

 O R D E R
                        P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
                       -----------------------------------------------
                            WP(C) NO. 17140 OF 2009
                             -----------------------------------
                      Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2009


                                      JUDGMENT

Challenging Ext.P1 and P2 orders passed by the first respondent

imposing the penalty on the petitioner, he has already filed Ext.P3 and P4

appeals along with Ext.P5 and P6 petitions to condone the delay in filing the

appeals, as well as Ext.P7 and P8 petitions for stay. The case of the

petitioner is that the third respondent is proceeding with coercive steps under

the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act as borne by Ext.P9, without any regard to

the pendency of the proceedings filed before the statutory authorities, which

in turn is sought to be intercepted by this Court.

2. Heard the learned Government pleader as well.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances, the second respondent

is directed to consider Ext.P3 and P4 appeals along with the petitions by the

petitioner as expeditiously as possible and to pass appropriate orders thereon

in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

It is made clear that till such appropriate orders are passed on Ext. P5 and P6

petitions to condone the delay, as well as on Ext.P7 and P8 petitions for stay,

WPC NO.17140/2009 2

all further coercive proceedings being pursued against the petitioner vide

Ext.P9 shall be kept in abeyance.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

(P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE)

dnc