IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17170 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.C.REGHU, PROPRIETOR, REKHA SAW MILL & FURNITURE WORKS, PATTIAM, KOTTIYODI.P.O. KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR SRI.KURYAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-II, KOOTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODU. 3. THE TAHSILDAR(RR), THALASSERY. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.17170 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 alleging that such proceedings are being pursued without any regard to Ext.P3 statutory appeal and Ext.P4 I.A for stay, preferred against Ext.P2 order of assessment made by the 1st respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, eventhough Ext.P2 assessment order is dated 25.3.2006, the same was served only on 27.1.2010 and as such, the appeal preferred by the petitioner is perfectly within the statutory time limit and is liable to be entertained by the appellate authority. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 3.6.2010, the learned Government Pleader sought for time to get instruction on the point. 3. The learned Government Pleader submits on instructions, that Ext.P2 is only a true copy of the order issued by the concerned authority on 27.1.2010. It is submitted that certified copy of Ext.P2 order was sent to the petitioner by registered post on 30.3.2006 and that the same was duly served. It is also stated that the petitioner has not revealed the actual position in the Writ Petition. It is also brought to the notice of this Court W.P.(C).NO.17170 OF 2010 2 that Ext.P5 Revenue Recovery Notice pertains to other assessment orders/liabilities as well and hence no interference is warranted. 4. In the above circumstances, this Court finds it difficult to accept the version of the petitioner and as such interference is declined. The Writ petition is dismissed, however, without expressing anything on merits and also without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue the matter, if any, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,JUDGE. pm