IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 2471 of 2011(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S) :- ----------------------- T.P.THOMAS, THETTIKKATTUMUGALATHU HOUSE, KEEZHILLAM, PERUMBAVOOR - 683 541. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENT(S) :- ------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM - 683 542. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.II, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERRY AT KARUKUTTY - 683 576. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM - 682 015. 4. THE INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 661. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C)No.2471 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May 2011 J U D G M E N T The writ petition was originally filed challenging Ext.P5 order of assessment, without resorting to the statutory remedy of appeal, mainly contending that there was denial of sufficient opportunity to the petitioner for filing objections and for personal hearing. Further contention of the petitioner was that the assessment was finalised based on an order imposing penalty (Ext.P6) which was under challenge before the 3rd respondent, in Ext.P7 appeal. According to the petitioner, the assessment finalised without waiting for the outcome of Ext.P7 appeal is unreasonable. 2. The respondents have filed a statement refuting all the contentions regarding denial of opportunity, specifically mentioning that sufficient opportunities were provided to the petitioner for filing objections and that the petitioner had failed to raise any objections against the proposal. W.P.(C)No.2471 of 2011 -: 2 :- 3. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner had approached the appellate authority (3rd respondent) and filed Ext.P8 appeal against the impugned assessment. Under such premise, the petitioner is seeking for a direction to the 3rd respondent for an early disposal of the appeal. It is also submitted that Ext.P7 appeal filed against the order imposing penalty was already heard by the 3rd respondent and the same stands reserved for pronouncing orders. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances as stated above, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of on issuing appropriate directions to the 3rd respondent. 5. The 3rd respondent is directed to pass orders on Ext.P7 appeal, on the basis of the hearing already conducted, at the earliest, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. The 3rd respondent is also directed to consider and disposed of Ext.P8 appeal filed against the assessment, after affording an opportunity of hearing the petitioner, at the W.P.(C)No.2471 of 2011 -: 3 :- earliest possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that while disposing Ext.P8, the outcome of Ext.P7 appeal shall also be taken into consideration. 7. Till such time Ext.P8 appeal is disposed of, recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P5 order shall be kept in abeyance, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting 25% of the amounts due and on furnishing security bond for the balance amount, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. Jvt