Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order passed by the third respondent imposing penalty for the assessment year 2012-2013, the petitioner preferred a Revision Petition before the first respondent. The said revision was dismissed vide Ext.P2 order. Being aggrieved by Ext.P2 order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 revision petition before the first respondent along with Ext.P4, petition for stay and Ext.P5, petition for condonation of delay. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that during the pendency of Ext.P3 review petition and Exts.P4 and P5 interlocutory applications, recovery proceedings are initiated by the fifth respondent by issuing Ext.P6 demand notice. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. It is aggrieved by the penalty imposed in Ext.P1, petitioner filed Ext.P3 revision petition before the first respondent along with W.P(. C)No.35456 OF 2014 : 2 :
Exts.P4 and P5 interlocutory applications. It was during the pendency of those applications recovery proceedings are initiated based on Ext.P6 demand notice.
Considering the fact that Ext.P4 stay petition and Ext.P5 delay condonation petition are still pending consideration before the first respondent, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P4 and P5 petitions, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, with notice to the petitioner. It is made clear that till such time, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6 demand notice shall be kept in abeyance.
jes ANIL K. NARENDRAN, Judge