IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 8521 of 2005(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S./ THANKAM BUSINESS LINES, KAVUNGAL, MALAPPLURAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR PAVITHRAN. BY ADV. SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE. 2. ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER III, MANJERI. 3. TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, ERNAD, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.P. PRADEEP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) 8521/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.1.2002 FOR THE YEAR 1999-2000. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.2.2004. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.8.2003 FOR THE YEAR 1999-2000. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST EXT.P3 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDET. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE R.R. NOTICE DATED 1.3.2005. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. = = = = = = = = == = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 8521 of 2005 = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who is a dealer in kerosene, contends that he being a second seller, the transaction is not liable to attract tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, in spite of which he was made to suffer the assessment, as per Ext.P3. The petitioner is challenging the correctness of Ext.P3 and the consequential demand as borne by Ext.P5 notice issued under the Revenue Recovery Act. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the original assessment was completed as early as on 25.6.2001; but because of some incriminating circumstances brought to light subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated; which finally culminated in Ext.P2, whereby the penalty was reduced to Rs. 1,000/- in respect of the concerned year 1999-2000. Based on the penalty imposed, the assessment was re-opened as per Ext.P3, mulcting a further liability upon the petitioner in respect of the assessment, which, in turn, was subjected to challenge by filing Ext.P4 appeal. The petitioner was constrained to approach this Court when coercive proceedings were taken WP(C) 8521/2005 2 without any regard to the pendency of the appeal, which, in turn, was intercepted by this Court, when the matter was admitted and the interim order was lastly extended for a period of two months on 5.4.2005. 3. Learned Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that Ext.P4 appeal preferred by the petitioner has already been considered and disposed of and as such, nothing further remains to be considered in this writ petition. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find it necessary to go into the merits of the case any further and the writ petition is closed accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) KNC/-