IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 13939 of 2007(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHACKO JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, THEKKUMKATTIL HOUSE, IRINGOLE P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ SRI.ANOOP JOSEPH SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, IIND CIRCLE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (R.R), ALUVA. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.13939/07 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.7.2006BEARING ASSESSMENT NO.23141488/95-96 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 95-96 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.7.2006 BEARING ASSESSMENT NO.23141488/96-97 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 96-97 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.7.2006 BEARING ASSESSMENT NO.23146488/96-97 (CST) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 96-97 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2005 IN STA NOS.452/05, 453/05 AND 501/05 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.13939 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges the orders of assessment issued against a firm. As noticed in the interim order dated 24.5.2007, issued at the time of admission, the petitioner is admittedly a partner of that business. The objections raised are against revised assessment orders. The limited plea of the petitioner is that he was not heard in the assessment proceedings and in the revised assessment proceedings. However, he does not demonstrate in this writ petition that such failure to be heard has resulted in any injustice to him. On facts, the petitioner does not disclose a case warranting interference of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.16/04.