IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 18611 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- GEEYEM MOTORS (P) LTD., 11/336, NH-47,BYEPASS NETTOR P.O., COCHIN 682 304, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER-ADMINISTRATION, SRI. K. RAVINDRAN. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHAFIK SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (TAXES), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES _II, SPECIAL CIRCLE -- III, COMMERCIAL TAXES COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 018. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(APPEALS),RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS),RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM. 5. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, IIND FLOOR, CIVIL STATION BUILDING, KAKKANADU, KOCHI 682 030. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 18611 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P2 assessment order and Ext.P7 revenue recovery notice. He has already filed Ext.P3 appeal and Ext.P4 revision. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Aswin Gopakumar and also the learned Government Pleader. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this is a case where the assessment order is bad for more reasons than one. He would submit in particular that though petitioner received pre-assessment notice and petitioner filed detailed objection, after about one year without giving an opportunity of being heard as is required in law, the order is passed. That itself is sufficient, according to him, to interfere with the order even though the petitioner has approached the appellate authority also. He would also submit that he has a case on merits. 4. After hearing both sides, I feel that this is a case where proceedings for recovery pursuant to Ext.P7 shall be kept in abeyance on the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.Two Lakhs. WPC. 18611/2008. 2 Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that if the petitioner deposits Rs.Two Lakhs within a period of two weeks from today and also furnishes security for the balance amount to the satisfaction of the assessing authority, recovery will be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb