Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 542 (KER)

BIJU JACOB v. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC)

2011-06-06

C.K.ABDUL REHIM

body2011
JUDGMENT Against Exts. P1 to P3 orders of assessment, the petitioner had filed appeals before the 2nd respondent, as evidenced from Exts. P4 to P6. Along with the appeals, the petitioner had filed stay petitions as evidenced from Exts. P4(a), P5(a) and P6(a) and early hearing petitions as evidenced from Exts. P4(b), P5(b) and P6(b). It is submitted that the appeal as well as the stay petitions are pending consideration and disposal before the 2nd respondent. Grievance of the petitioner is that, without considering pendency of the appeals, coercive steps for recovery has now been initiated on the basis of Ext. P7 notice. Heard; learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. Considering pendency of the statutory appeals, 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 Exts. P4(a), P4(b) and P6(a) stay petitions filed along with the appeals, 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 the amounts covered under Exts. P1 to P3, which is now initiated on the basis of Ext. P7 notice, shall be kept in abeyance. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent. Needless to say that the 2nd respondent will take all earnest steps for disposal of the appeals at the earliest possible.