IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24536 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M.ABDUL HUK, VIKAS MARKETTING, KANNARA STREET, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHAKARA MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, (AUDIT ASSESSMENT), COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD. 3. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, II CIRCLE, PALAKKAD. 4. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 24536 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 26th August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P1 order passed by the second respondent two years back on 04.08.2007, simultaneously challenging Ext.P4 proceedings imposing penalty. It appears that the petitioner realised the necessity to challenge Ext.P1, only when Ext. P3 notice proposing imposition of penalty followed by Ext.P4 order imposing the same were issued by the concerned respondent. 2. Obviously Ext. P1 is very much appealable and this Court does not find it necessary to go into the merits of the case, invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially when it is also much belated. However, this will not preclude the rights and interests of the petitioner in availing the statutory remedy, in accordance with law. W.P.(C) No. 24536 OF 2009 2 3. In view of the steps stated as being pursued by the petitioner as put forth by the learned Counsel, it is made clear that the recovery proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner, by virtue of Ext.P5 and P6, shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk