IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2009 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9979 of 2009(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.L. JOSE, S/O. LONAPPAN, VADAKKAN HOUSE, PLAVALAPPIL LANE, KIZHAKKUMPPATTUKARA, THRISSUR -5. BY DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICE (INVESTIGATION BRANCH), COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR, 3. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, IIIRD CIRCLE, THRISSUR. 4. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (SQUAD I), COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), THRISSUR -20. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 9979 OF 2009 N ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner approached this court on the following brief allegations. The petitioner was a partner of a firm. The firm stopped business and the fact of stoppage was reported to the 3rd respondent. It is stated that the registration was not renewed thereafter. It is further stated that action was taken by the 4th respondent under section 45A(1) of the KGST Act. Penalty order was passed. The petitioner filed revision. It was set aside and the case was remanded back. The petitioner filed a second round revision petition before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent set aside the penalty order and remanded the matter. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner did not receive any revised order or demand notice. Now, the 5th respondent has issued revenue recovery notices. The petitioner approached this court challenging that recovery notices. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the revised order was passed on WPC.9979/09 : 2 : 1.6.2007. It is submitted that the revised order was returned with endorsement “unclaimed” and it is stated that it is also served by affixture. Learned counsel for the petitioner brings to my notice a decision of the Division Bench of this court reported in Mohammed Ali Vs. Additional Sales Tax Officer [2006 (2) KLT SN 80] for the proposition that when pre-assessment notice is returned as unclaimed, it does not mean refused. In view of the fact that revised orders have been passed, if so advised, it is for the petitioner to carry the matter before the appropriate forum. Learned Government Pleader points out that the decision of the Division Bench may not apply in view of the service affected by way of affixture. Whatever that be, writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to take up such steps as is advised against the revised notice for which he may take steps. Needless to say, if the petitioner makes application for getting certified copy after giving the necessary stamp, it will be supplied. Sd/- (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks