IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2011 / 29TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26634 of 2011(D) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M/S.MAXTHERM TECHNOLOGIES(P)LTD T.S.KRISHNA NAGAR, ANNA NAGAR WEST EXTN, CHENNAI-600050 REP.BY ITS MANAGER RAGOTHAMAN BY ADV. SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SQUAD V,KASARAGOD-671121 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, COMMERCIALTAXES, SQUAD V, KASARAGOD-671121 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE-673006 4. THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, T.S.K.NAGAR, (T.S.KRISHNA NAGAR) CHENNAI BRANCH-600150 REP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN R4 BY ADV. SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.26634/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER NO.ISK-V/2010-11 DATED 15-11-2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P2:-TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 10-12-2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. P3:-TRUE COPY OF THE POSTING NOTICE DATED 1/8/2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P4:-TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ADJOURNMENT REQUEST DATED 13/8/2011 FILED BY THE COUNSEL OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P5:-TRUE COPY OF THE SAID COURIER RECEIPT NO.R04861972 DATED 13/8/2011. P6:-TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 26/8/2011 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 26634 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 21st day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order in assessment passed by the 3rd respondent in an appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the assessment order under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The petitioner's contention is that on the date of hearing, the petitioner applied for an adjournment, which was not granted and, therefore, Ext.P6 order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice insofar as the petitioner has not been given an effective opportunity of being heard. 2. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the petitioner had in W.P.(C).No.37157/2010 obtained an order directing the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal within a specified time and thereafter he applied for an adjournment. That is why the appellate authority was constrained to dispose of the appeal without a further opportunity of being heard, is the contention of the learned Government Pleader. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. I find considerable merit in the contention of the learned Government Pleader. After obtaining an order for disposal of the appeal within a limited time, the petitioner could not have asked for an w.p.c.26634/11 - : 2 :- adjournment. As such, I am of opinion that the petitioner's remedy lies in challenging Ext.P6 order in a further appeal as provided under the Act. Without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge