IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6409 of 2010(A) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- TEEJAN FOODS PVT. LTD., THAYIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR-FRANCIS J.PALLAN. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SMT.RUKHIYABI MOHD KUNHI RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT I SPECIAL CIRCLE, MATTANCHERRY. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERRY. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ................................................... WP (C) NO. 6409 OF 2010 ............................................... Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of the non finalisation of the proceedings by passing appropriate orders on Exhibit P2 and P3 revision petitions originally filed before the 3rd respondent. 2. It is the case of the petitioner, that even though Exhibit P2 and P3 revision petitions were filed challenging the impugned orders imposing penalty under section 45 A before the 3rd respondent, subsequently, in view of the amendment of the statute and the provisions made for appeal, the above revision petitions were stated as transfered to the 2nd respondent, who later issued notice of hearing to the petitioner. It was at this point of time, that the 2nd respondent happened to come across some orders passed by the 3rd respondent earlier, which according to the petitioner have not been communicated to the petitioner at any point of time. In the said WP (C) NO. 6409 OF 2010 2 circumstance, the 2nd respondent refused to pass further orders and chose to forward file to the 3rd respondent. When the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent it is said that the 3rd respondent refused to entertain the matter and instructed the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents 2 and 3 are simply playing 'hide and seek' game, which hence is under challenge before this Court. 3. Heard the Learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Considering the particular facts and circumstances, the second/third respondents (as the case may be) is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P2 and P3 proceedings filed by petitioner challenging Exhibits P1 and P1 (a) orders imposing penalty in respect of the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 in accordance with law. This shall be finalised after giving an opportunity of hearing to the WP (C) NO. 6409 OF 2010 3 petitioner as expeditiously as possible at rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and copy of the order shall be served to the petitioner immediately. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. rkc