IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2010 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 9385 of 2007(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- HOTEL DOUBLOON, KALLAMBALAM REP.BY MANAGING PARTNER, R.MANILAL. BY ADV. MR. R.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY OF TAXES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT-III), SPECIAL CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 4. SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP.BY SECRETARY. 5. THAHSILDAR, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, ATTTINGAL. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. V. K.SHAMSUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No. 9385 OF 2007 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 3rd day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The challenge in this Writ Petition is with regard to the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner during the pendency of the statutory revision before the third respondent. 2. When the matter came up for consideration on 06.03.2007, the following order was passed. “Admit. Issue notice. If Ext. P6 is received and pending, the third respondent shall consider and pass orders thereon, in accordance with law, within two weeks from the date of production of this order. Further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P4 shall be kept in abeyance, for a period of three weeks from today.” Thereafter, another order was passed on 13.04.2007 as given below: “Heard. The petitioner may pay the entire amount of disputed tax, if any remaining unpaid. The demand for interest up to the date of demand shall not be recovered if the petitioner furnishes security for the said amount. If ultimately the appeal is dismissed, the amount paid shall be first adjusted towards interest.” Fact remains that the matter was not brought up further by the petitioner. When the writ petition is taken up for hearing, there is no W.P. (C) No. 9385 of 2007 : 2 : representation as well. It appears that the petitioner is no more interested with the cause of action projected in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd