IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 25969 of 2008(N) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- RANGASWAMY, PROPRIETOR, KUMARAN MODERN RICE MILLS, KOLAYAKODE, POOTHUSSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.IV, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 2. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUV ANANTHAPURAM. 3. TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.25969 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2011. JUDGMENT Penalty imposed upon the petitioner under Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act as per Ext.P3 order passed by the first respondent was challenged by filing appeal before the second respondent which culminated in Ext.P4, whereby Ext.P3 was confirmed. Met with the situation, the petitioner preferred Ext.P5 revision before the second respondent, which was rejected as per Ext.P6. The petitioner is challenging the impugned orders in the said circumstances, stating that “Copies of the slips” recovered from the petitioner in the course of seizure were not supplied, so as to have facilitated to file a detailed objection and thus seeks for interference. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits with reference to the contents W.P.(C). NO.25969 OF 2008 2 of Ext.P3 order that, on receipt of Ext.P2 letter of the petitioner, a notice was sent on 8.1.2003 allowing him a chance for filing objection and also to have copies of all 'slips'. Despite the service of notice, but for submitting another letter dated 23.1.2002 requesting for further time of 15 days, the petitioner did not turn up to obtain 'copies of slips' which led to finalisation of the proceeding as per Ext.P3; which has been confirmed by the revisional authorities as per Exts.P4 and P6. There is no representation for the petitioner. In the said circumstances, this Court refrains from adjudicating the matter on merits. The case is dismissed for non-prosecution. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. mns