IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2009 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 6841 of 2009(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- E.C. VARGHESE, KATTUPARA RUBBER TRADERS, TB JUNCTION, KALLADIKKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) TALUK OFFICE, MANNARKKAD. By GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 6841 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 22nd day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment passed by the first respondent, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 regular appeal before the Deputy Commissioner; simultaneously approaching the Tribunal; which culminated in Ext.P4 order passed by the Tribunal, whereby the assessment for the year 1999 - 2000 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Assessing authority for fresh disposal, making it clear that assessee had to comply with Section 17 (4), read with Rule 18 A of KGST Rules, 1963. Despite the above order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, it is stated that the first respondent has issued Ext.P7 order (stated as based on the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on the appeal preferred before him) which in turn has led to Ext.P5 and Ext.P6 demands. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned proceedings are not at all sustainable in law; particularly in view of Ext.P4 order passed by the Tribunal which has not been taken into consideration by the respondents. However, it is stated by the petitioner in paragraph 8 of the Writ Petition that, after passing Ext.P4 order by the Tribunal, the petitioner did not pursue Ext.P3 appeal preferred before the Deputy Commissioner as it had become WP (C) No. 6841 of 2009 : 2 : infructuous. The learned Government Pleader submits that there is no deliberate attempt on the part of the first respondent to ignore Ext.P4 and that he was only acting in tune with the modified assessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in the appeal preferred before him. In any view of the matter, there cannot be any dispute that Ext.P1 assessment order is no more, having been set aside by the Tribunal as per Ext. P4, remanding the matter for fresh consideration by the first respondent; which step is yet to be pursued and implemented by the first respondent. 3. In the above circumstance, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to finalise the proceedings as directed in Ext.P4. The orders impugned in the Writ Petition are set aside. The matter shall be finalised as above, by the first respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period two months. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd WP (C) No. 6841 of 2009 : 3 :