Of Luxury Tax. The Learned Counsel Further Submits That The Stand Being Taken By The Appellate Authority Is Not Correct In View Of The Decision Reported In ( 19 v. Agricultural Income Tax Officer And Another ]_

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 528 of 2010(M) ------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------- M FAR HOTELS LTD., NH 47 BYE PASS, KUNDANNUR JUNCTION, COCHIN 682 304, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, M.M.ABDUL BASHEER. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS, ERNAKULAM. 3. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INT), DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 030. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 528 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 7[th] January , 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenging Ext.P1 order imposing penalty upon the petitioner with regard to payment of luxury tax under Section 17(A) of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act 1976, the petitioner hasalready approached the appellate authority by filing Ext. P2appeal, also filing Ext. P3 petition for stay. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, it is without anyregard to the pendency of the said proceedings, that therespondents are proceeding with coercive steps, as borne byExt.P4 notice issued under the relevant provisions of theRevenue Recovery Act, which hence is sought to be challenged inthis Writ Petition. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that,though the Appellate authority has been moved, no favourableorders are being passed on Ext. P3 petition for stay and that thepetitioner is given to understand that the lethargy on the part ofthe respondents is only because of the fact that there is noprovision in the concerned enactment for granting stay in respect W.P.(C) No. 528 OF 2010 of luxury tax. The learned Counsel further submits that thestand being taken by the appellate authority is not correct inview of the decision reported in (1984) 149 ITR 120 (Ker.)-[V.N. Purushothaman vs. Agricultural IncomeTax Officerand another ]. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, the secondrespondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders onExt. P3 treating it as a valid and proper petition, as expeditiouslyas possible, at any rate, within one month from the date ofreceipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that till suchorders are passed on Ext. P3, all further steps pursuant to Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.