Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 514 (KER)

MATHA WOOD INDUSTRIES v. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER I

2011-05-31

C.K.ABDUL REHIM

body2011
JUDGMENT Against Ext. P1 order of assessment, the petitioner had filed appeal before the 2nd respondent, as evidenced from Ext. P2. Along with the appeal the petitioner had filed stay petition as evidenced from Ext. P3. It is submitted that the appeal as well as the stay petition 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. P4 notice issued. Heard; learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. It is submitted that there may be delay in filing the appeal. Considering pendency of the statutory appeal, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the appellate authority to expedite the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext. P3 stay petition, if the appeal is registered and the same is in order, 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. Till such time orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above, recovery of amounts covered under Ext. P1, which is now initiated on the basis of Ext. P4 notice, shall be kept in abeyance. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent.