IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21257 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JAYALAL V.NAIR, PROPRIETOR, M/S. SURYA BUILDING CONSULTANCY, LAL BHAVAN, MANNADISALA P.O., VECHOONIRA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. RAJU JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC & LT), COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), OFFICER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE, KOLLAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 21257 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 29th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the grievance that the entire proceedings taken by the departmental authorities right from the beginning projecting him as a ''construction contractor'', instead of a 'construction consultant' is not at all correct or sustainable, especially when the petitioner, on approaching the concerned authority (first respondent) pointing out the actual facts and figures, is stated as assured that the mistake in having issued Ext.P4 assessment order as well as Ext.P3 penalty order would be corrected by the said authority . 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is the proprietor of a 'consultant agency', whose nature of operation is only to prepare some 'plans' and 'designs' for valuable consideration, of course effecting the site supervision in some cases and nothing more. There is absolutely no question of any 'work contract' as undertaken or performed by the petitioner and as a natural consequence, there is no question of any taxable event as well. 3. The above submissions are strongly rebutted from the part of the respondents, when the learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner is admittedly a registered dealer, which however is sought to be explained from the part of the petitioner, stating that registration WP (C) No. 21257 of 2009 : 2 : was taken under some compelling circumstances, particularly in view of the course, attitude and proceedings sought to be pursued by the departmental authorities. 4. In any view of the matter, for the purpose of this case, it is quite enough to refer to the sequence of events that the first respondent has already passed Exts. P3 and P4 orders in respect of penalty as well as the assessment, which in turn have been subjected to challenge by filing statutory appeals, as borne by Exts.P6 and P10 before the second respondent. It is pointed out that, with regard to Ext.P10 there is a short delay, which hence is sought to be condoned by filing Ext.P12 petition; where as in the case of Ext.P6 appeal, the petitioner has filed Ext.P7 petition for stay seeking for appropriate interim orders. The case of the petitioner is that, it is without any regard to the pendency of the above proceedings that Exts.P8 and P9 notices under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act have been issued to the petitioner, which hence is sought to be intercepted in the present Writ Petition. 5. After considering the rival submissions and the particular facts and circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P6 and P10 appeals preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law, subject to the orders to be passed on Ext.P12 petition to condone the delay in filing Ext.P10 appeal, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The proceedings as WP (C) No. 21257 of 2009 : 3 : above, shall be finalized as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, till such orders are passed, the coercive proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner on the basis of Exts. P8 and P9 notices, shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd