IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2008 / 2ND MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1324 of 2008(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- R.VELAYUDHAN NAIR RESIDING AT VIII/296,AMRITHA KRIPA, NORTH ARYAD P.O., KOMALAPURAM, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.RAJESHKUMAR SRI.JOLLY JOHN SRI.T.KURIAKOSE PETER RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. SALES TAX OFFICER ,IST CIRCLE, TRIPUNITHURA, KOCHI-682 301. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR) AMBALAPPUZHA. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, KOMALAPURAM VILLAGE AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. 4. OFFICER UNDER RTI ACT,SALES TAX OFFICE IST CIRCLE,TRIPUNITHURA, KOCHI 682 301. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 1324 OF 2008 G ===================== Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he was an assessee on the rolls of the 1st respondent. Long after the business was closed, petitioner was issued Ext.P3 notice proposing to impose penalty under Section 45(A) of the KGST Act. To this, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 reply. According to the learned counsel there has not been any further progress in the matter and nothing was heard. However, Ext.P5 revenue recovery notice has been served on the petitioner presumably for realising the penalty that was levied following a final order that was passed pursuant to Ext.P3. Since the petitioner was not even served a copy of the order, the liability of which was sought to be enforced against him, petitioner submitted Ext.P6 application invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act requiring the authorities to furnish WPC 1324/08 :2 : copies of the orders that were passed against him. It is at that stage this writ petition has been filed. 2. On instructions, learned Government pleader submits that though orders were send to the petitioner under registered post, those were returned unserved and it was therefore that the recovery proceedings were initiated. It is also submitted that Ext.P6 application was made by the petitioner on 9/1/08 was processed and the required documents were forwarded to the petitioner on 18/1/2008. In view of this, learned Government pleader would defend the recovery action that has been initiated. 3. Irrespective of the reasons for its non receipt by the petitioner, fact remains that the order passed pursuant to Ext.P3 has not been served on him. It is only now that the petitioner has been sent yet another copy on 18/1/08. Therefore, I am satisfied that the petitioner should be given a breathing time to enable him to pursue the statutory remedy that is provided for against the order that is issued. WPC 1324/08 :3 : 4. Accordingly, I direct that further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 shall be deferred for a period of one month from today and in the meanwhile, it will be open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies against the orders pursuant toExt.P3. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp