Kerala High Court
Smt.Lissy George vs The Assistant Commissioner-I on 2 November, 2010
Author: C.K.Abdul Rehim
Bench: C.K.Abdul Rehim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33218 of 2010(B)
1. SMT.LISSY GEORGE, PROPRIETRIX,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER-I,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),
3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
4. THE STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :02/11/2010
O R D E R
C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
W.P.(C) No. 33218 of 2010
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Dated this the 2nd day of November,2010
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by Ex.P2 order of assessment completed with respect to the year 2008-'09, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 appeal before the 2nd respondent. Ext.P5 is the stay petition filed along with the appeal. It is submitted that the appeal and the stay petition are pending consideration and disposal before the appellate authority. Grievance of the petitioner is that revenue recovery steps are now being pursued on issuing Ext.P1 demand notice, without considering pendency of the appeal. Under such circumstances, the petitioner seeks direction to restrain the recovery steps till the disposal of the appeal.
2. It is contended that the assessment is made based on an inspection conducted and a subsequent compounding opted by the petitioner. It is also contended that pursuant to receipt of the proposal, the petitioner had submitted application under section 22(5) and paid settlement fee, which was not accepted by the assessing authority on the basis of an erroneous W.P.(C) No. 33218/ 2 interpretation of the relevant provisions.
3. However, considering the fact that statutory appeal as well as the stay petition are pending consideration and disposal before the appellate authority, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can agitate such matters before the appellate authority and appellate authority has to dispose of the matter on an earlier basis.
4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 stay petition, 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.
5. Till such time orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above, recovery steps initiated on the basis of Ext.P1 shall kept in abeyance.
6. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the appellate authority.
C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
mn.