The petitioner, who is an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of penalty passed against him by the first respondent. He, therefore, preferred a revision before the Deputy Commissioner, which also came to be dismissed by Ext.P2 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 order, the petitioner preferred a second revision before the second respondent. He also filed Ext.P4 stay petition in the revision petition filed before the second respondent. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that, even before consideration of Ext.P4 stay petition by the second respondent, revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated as per Ext.P5 demand notice, in respect of the amount confirmed on him by Ext.P1 order.
W.P.(C) No. 35313 of 2014 (L) 2
3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
4. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 stay petition, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner by Ext.P5 notice shall be kept in abeyance, till orders are passed on Ext.P4 and communicated to the petitioner.
AMV/23/12/ Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE