By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menon Smt.meera V.menon Smt.k.krishna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 5TH MAGHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 2670 of 2018 PETITIONER O.C. SADANANDAN WAYANAD DISTRICT. M/S. MALANAD GRANITES, MOOVATTY, KOZHUTHANA P.O, BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER VYTHIRI AT KALPETTA 673 121. VYTHIRI AT KALPETTA 673 121. 2. THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOZHIKODE 673 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. KOZHIKODE 673 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER:SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-01-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15, DATED 18.12.15.EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER , WAYANAD, DATED 17.2.17.EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31.8.17.EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31.8.17.EXHIBIT P5. COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31.8.17.RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.2670 of 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of January, 2018 JUDGMENT Challenging Ext.P2 appellate order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal. There was a delay of 72 days in filing the appeal. Ext.P4 is the application preferred by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the appeal and Ext.P5 is the application preferred by the petitioner in the appeal for stay. It is stated that proceedings have already been initiated for realisation of the amounts covered by the order impugned in the appeal. The grievance of the petitioner, in the circumstances, concerns the delay in disposing of the appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. Since the delay in filing the appeal is only 72 days, having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the Tribunal to condone the delay in filing the appeal and pass orders on the application for stay, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that till orders are passed on the application for stay, further proceedings for realization of the amounts covered by the order impugned in the appeal shall be deferred by the respondents concerned. rsr Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE