IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 1113 of 2006(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.R.RAVEENDRA NATH, PARTNER, M/S.VARKALA ELECTRO INDUSTRIES (P) LTD., VARKALA, KALIYILIL VEEDU, KIZHAKKEPPURAM, AYROOR P.O., VARKALA. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF INDUSTRIES, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, ATTINGAL. 4. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF FINANCE, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. KERALA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., (KELTRON), KELTRON HOUSE, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY SHRI.TEKCHAND, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.1113/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.38/95/TD DATED 02/02/1995 ISSUED BY the TAXES (B) DEPARTMENT. P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT NO.11161196/83-84 DATED 28/12/1996 ISSUED BY R3. P3 : COPY OF PROCEEDING DATED 23/11/83 OF R6. P4 : COPY OF PROCEEDING DATED 30/03/84 OF R6. P5 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 08/10/99 IN SALES TAX APPEAL NOS.1046/98, 1047/98, 1048/98 AND 1049/98 OF R4. P5(a) : COPY OF ORDER NO.23/10/97 ISSUED BY R4. P6 : COPY OF NOTICE NO.RRC 113/05-06, 11161196/81-82 AND 11166196/83-84 TO 92-93 DATED 27/10/2005 ISSUED BY R3. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.1113 of 2006 ------------------------------ Dated, this the 7th Day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner’s case is that recovery is initiated without revision of assessment pursuant to Ext.P5. Learned Government Pleader on instruction submitted that in spite of repeated notices, petitioner did not appear and therefore fresh orders are issued pursuant to Ext.P5. If revised orders are issued, then the remedy available to petitioner is only filing of appeal against the revised orders, if there is any continued grievance. There is no scope for this Court considering factual disputes on service of notice pursuant to Ext.P5. Petitioner has no case that he approached or ever requested the Assessing Officer to revise the assessment pursuant to the appellate order issued on 08/10/1999. However, since the writ petition is pending in this Court for over two years, I feel one more opportunity can be given to petitioner to produce the records before 3rd respondent for rectification of revised orders already issued and if petitioner produces records 3rd respondent will verify the same and make modification of revised assessment to the extent required WP(C) No.1113/2006 -2- in rectification proceedings ignoring time bar provided under Section 43 of the Act. Petitioner is granted one month's time from today for compliance of the judgment. However, if petitioner does not produce copy of the records relied on by him by producing this judgment and after obtaining posting notice from 3rd respondent, recovery can be continued based on the present orders after one month from now. However, if petitioner produces the records before the 3rd respondent as above, rectified orders should be issued by him without any delay and recovery will be made in terms of such orders to be issued as above. Petitioner will be served with copy of the revised orders on production of copy of the judgment, for him to request for rectification based on directions issued as above. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg