IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32783 of 2010(W) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- NAZER P.M., MIRSHAD VENEERS, PALLATHUKUNDY HOUSE, SOUTH VAZHAKKULAM, CHEMBARAKY, ALUVA-5. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SMT.K.HYMAVATHY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-I, 2ND CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PERUMBAVOOR-683 542. 2. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661. R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 32783 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 9th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Assessment under the the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act with respect to year 2005-'06 was finalized against the petitioner by virtue of Exts.P3 and P4 orders respectively. Some mistakes in Ext.P4 order were rectified, by virtue of subsequent order dated 13-5-2010. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P3 and P4 orders on the premise that he was not afforded with any personal hearing after filing objections to the proposal notices. Exts.P1 and P2 are notices issued to the petitioner intimating the proposal for completing the assessment. 2. It is evident from Exts.P3 and P4 that the petitioner submitted objections against Ext.P1, but he failed to submit any specific objections as far as Ext.P2 is concerned. The objection submitted against Ext.P1 was elaborately considered in Ext.P4 order. It is noticed that all the grounds W.P.(C) No. 32783/2010 2 raised in the objections were adverted to by the authority and after considering such objections, a decision was taken on the basis of specific reasons assigned in the orders of assessment. I do not find that there is any denial of effective opportunity to contest the matter. All the grounds raised by the petitioner was considered elaborately. 3. Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned orders of assessment could not be termed as one issued without jurisdiction or as an order which is per se illegal and unsustainable. 4. Therefore, I find no reason to entertain this writ petition which is filed without resorting to the statutory remedy of appeal provided. Hence, I am of the view that the petitioner can be relegated to the appellate authority. 5. Having confronted with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to approach the appellate authority. For facilitating the petitioner to file appeal against Exts.P3 and P4 and to seek appropriate remedy, a request is made by W.P.(C) No. 32783/2010 3 the petitioner to keep in abeyance further steps of recovery for a reasonable period. 6. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file statutory appeal against Exts.P3 and P4 before the appropriate authority, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is left open to the petitioner to seek appropriate interim relief from the appellate authority with respect to stay of collection of the tax amount pending disposal of the appeal. In order to facilitate the petitioner to move before the appellate authority, recovery steps initiated pursuant to Ext.P5 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month from today. C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. mn.