IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 28TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3780 of 2011(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHRI.MOHAMMED RAFI SYED, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.H.SYED, RAJI MANZIL, KADAKKAL, MANCODE VILLAGE, MATHIRA P.O. KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, PIN - 691536 (NON-RESIDDENT INDIAN, HAVING THE ADDRESS P.O. BOX 24185, SHARJAH - U.A.E.) BY ADV. SMT.K.LATHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOEM TAX (INV), CENTRAL CIRCLE -2,TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.3780 of 2011-V ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Through Ext.P6A and P6B orders, the assessments against the petitioner, for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06 were completed under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. According to the petitioner there occurred some error apparent on the face of the record and hence the petitioner had submitted Exts.P7A and P7B rectification petitions before the 1st respondent. It is stated that those applications are pending consideration and disposal before the 1st respondent. Grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent is not disposing those applications and in the meanwhile coercive steps of recovery for realising the amounts covered under Exts.P6A and P6B are being pursued. 2. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the issue agitated under Exts.P7 and P7A applications are not relating to any error W.P(C) No.3780 of 2011-V 2 apparent on the face of the records. But the attempt of the petitioner is to bring certain new materials which were not produced at the time of assessment. It is the further contention of the respondents that, if the petitioner has got any grievance against the orders of assessment, the proper remedy is to file statutory appeals. 3. Considering the rival contentions, I am of the view that it is not proper or justified on the part of this Court to enter upon merits of the contentions, since it is evident that Exts.P7A and P7B applications were not considered by the 1st respondent. I am also not proposing to enter upon any finding as to whether such applications are maintainable or not. Whether there was any apparent error on the face of the records which are liable to be rectified, is a matter for the authority concerned to decide at the first instance. I am of the view that interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P7 and P7A, within a time to be stipulated, and till then to restrain the coercive steps of W.P(C) No.3780 of 2011-V 3 recovery. 4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P7A and P7B applications, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. Till such time orders are passed by the 1st respondent as directed above, recovery of amounts covered under Exts.P6A and P6B shall be kept in abeyance. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab