IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28164 of 2008(C) ---------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RAJESH KUMAR, S/O. CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, AGED 37 YEARS, KOLLARAZHIKATHU HOUSE, MANJALLOOR, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT (PROPRIETOR, BHARATH WOOD INDUSTRIES PATHANAPURAM). BY ADV. SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX, KOLLAM. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KOLLAM. 4. THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES OFFICER, PATHANAPRUAM TALUK. 5. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, PUNALUR. 6. THE TAHASILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 7. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PUNALUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 28164 OF 2008 C -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th October, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges recovery proceedings. According to petitioner, he is entitled to exemption. He had approached this Court earlier and Ext.P7 is the Judgment by which this Court directed the third respondent therein, namely the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Kollam to consider the application for exemption. Pursuant to the same, Ext.P8 dated 2.2.2002 came to be passed granting exemption. However, the petitioner is faced with recovery proceedings as evident from Ext.P11. Ext.P11 is in the year 2007. Learned Government Pleader got instructions. He submits that actually assessment was completed for the year 1998 - 1999 on 14.2.2001. petitioner filed the application for exemption on 18.10.2001. The assessment order was in February, 2002. Besides, he points out that an order of penalty came to be passed on 6.11.2001. It WPC.28164/08 C 2 is also pointed out that a perusal of Ext.P8 would show that the order of exemption was to be communicated to the Sales Tax Officer through the petitioner's Unit which the petitioner has not done. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I feel that it is for the petitioner to resort to statutory remedy against the assessment order. Counsel for petitioner would submit that the petitioner will pay off the penalty. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: If the petitioner prefers Appeal within a period of three weeks from today against the assessment order for the year 1998 - 1999, it will be treated as filed in time and disposed of on merits. It is open to the petitioner to seek interim relief also in the said Appeal. It is also open to the petitioner to bring to the notice of the Appellate Authority Ext.P8 Order. In order to facilitate the petitioner to move the Appellate Authority, WPC.28164/08 C 3 recovery steps will be kept in abeyance for one month from today. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge