IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929 W.P.(C).No. 3366 of 2008 (A) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- SMT. O.K. SAROJINI, W/O. C.KRISHNAN, NALANDA, PALLIKKARA P.O., NILESHWAR. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,KASARGOD. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, HOSDURG. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P. (C) No. 3366 OF 2008 - A = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he has filed Exts.P1(a) to P1(e) G forms for the periods mentioned therein. It is stated by the petitioner that despite filing the G forms, Ext.P2 demand notice was issued calling upon her to explain as to why tax has not been levied. On receipt of this, petitioner filed Ext.P3. Complaining that revenue recovery action is continued by Exts.P4 and P5 this writ petition has been filed. 2. As already noticed, what the petitioner asserts is that G forms have been filed and that, ignoring the same, revenue recovery action is continuing. It is rightly pointed out by the learned Govt. Pleader that the period covered by Ext.P1 G forms and the period for which Ext. P2 memo issued are totally different. Therefore, for the period covered by Ext. P2 memo no G forms were filed. In view of W.P.(C) No. 3366 OF 2008 - 2 - this, I cannot find fault with the revenue recovery action that is initiated by the respondents. 3. Though misleading submissions have been made in this writ petition, I leave the matter at that. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-