IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 8352 of 2011(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER ------------------- P.N.THANKAPPAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 51, PARAKKATTIL HOUSE, PUTHENCRUZE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- ------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, IIND CIRCLE, OFFICE OF THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR 686772. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNADU, PERUMBAVOOR 686772. 3. HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD., AMBALAMUGAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER (FINANCE) PIN682 302. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.8352 of 2011-T ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be a registered dealer engaged in works contract, who was permitted to effect payment of tax due under the compounding scheme, as contemplated under Section 7(7A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (KGST Act). The petitioner was issued with a notice under Section 19 of the KGST Act, as per Ext.P3, intimating proposal to assess the turnover alleged to have escaped assessment with respect to the year 1999-2000. The proposal was objected as per Ext.P4. But when coercive steps of recovery was initiated, without passing final order of assessment, the petitioner had approached this Court in a writ petition. In Ext.P6 judgment this Court directed the assessing authority to pass final orders, considering the objections with notice to the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner Ext.P6 judgment was communicated to the assessing authority through Ext.P7 W.P(C) No.8352 of 2011-T 2 letter and a request was made to take final decision considering the objections. But through Ext.P8, the 1st respondent assessing authority had intimated the petitioner that the final order had already been issued as early as on 29.6.2005, even prior to Ext.P6 judgment, in the light of an appellate order. Through Ext.P8 the petitioner was requested to remit the amounts due under the orders already finalised. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P8 on the basis of an allegation that no such final orders was ever issued to the petitioner and that he was not aware of passing any such orders. 3. It is evident from Ext.P8 that an assessment under Section 19 has already been finalised, as early as on 29.6.2005. The petitioner has got an effective remedy of statutory appeal to challenge such order. If the petitioner has not received copy of the final order, as alleged, he could have approached the assessing authority with an application for getting certified copy of the same. Without resorting to any such remedy, the challenge now raised against the order, that too without producing copy of the same, could W.P(C) No.8352 of 2011-T 3 not be entertained in this writ petition. Hence the writ petition deserves no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court to restrain recovery steps for a reasonable period in order to facilitate the petitioner to get a copy of the order of assessment and to take steps to file appeal against the same. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that, coercive steps of recovery can be directed to be kept in abeyance for a reasonable period in order to facilitate the petitioner to take appropriate steps. 6. In the result, while dismissing the writ petition, the respondents are restrained from taking any further coercive steps of recovery for realising the amounts mentioned in Ext.P8, for a period of six weeks. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab