IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 4593 of 2010(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- M/S.PRINT'N' PRINTS, PALARIVATTOM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SUNITHA RAGHU. BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, II CIRCLE, KALAMASSERY AT PALARIVATTOM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS0 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.4593 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: “i) to issue a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1, Ext.P1a, Ext.P1b, Ext.P1c assessment orders and Ext.P3, Ext.P3a, Ext.P3b and Ext.P4 penalty orders. ii) to declare that the action of the 1st respondent is violative of the provisions of the Act and principles of natural justice. iii) to grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court because of the course and procedure followed by the respondents, particularly with regard to the manner of finalisation of the W.P.(C) No.4593 of 2010 - 2 - orders imposing penalty and simultaneously finalising the assessment proceedings without any regard to the actual facts and circumstances. It is also contended that the petitioner could not open an account with the State Bank of India in connection with the admitted facts and circumstances as contemplated under the relevant provisions of law brought into effect from 1.9.2009 pertained to 'E' Payment. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well who asserts that the averments and allegations raised by the petitioner are quite contrary to the actual facts and circumstances and that no interference is called for, more so when the petitioner is very much provided with an effective alternative remedy in respect of Ext.P1 series of assessment orders and further when the petitioner has already filed statutory appeals against Ext.P3 series and Ext.P4 orders imposing penalty. 4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for W.P.(C) No.4593 of 2010 - 3 - the petitioner submits that appropriate directions may be issued to the second respondent to consider the proceedings in appeal already filed before the said authority. Even though there is no specific prayer incorporated in the writ petition, weighing the matter as a whole, this Court considers it fit and proper to have the matter finalised with regard to the imposition of penalty by giving appropriate direction to the second respondent. 5. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7 series petitions for stay during the pendency of Ext.P6 series of appeals. The second respondent shall consider the said applications and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge Ext.P1 series of assessment orders by resorting to the statutory remedy as provided under the relevant provisions of law. So as to enable the petitioner to resort to W.P.(C) No.4593 of 2010 - 4 - further proceedings in this regard all further proceedings pursuant to the assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns