IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2011 / 2ND ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 7205 of 2011(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.GOPINATHAN,M/S.S.G.TIMBERS, VELLAMUNDA,WAYANAD DISTRICT,NOW RESIDING AT VALSALA BHAVAN, T.P.1/628,THIRUVALLOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST BY ADV. SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE AGRL.INCOME TAX & SALES TAX OFFICER DEPT.OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,MANATHAVADY-670645 2. THE INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, DEPT.OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,WAYANAD-673121 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7205 of 2011(A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DT.18.12.2006 EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.13.12.2006 EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD.23.2.2011. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.34120786 DT.20.6.2006 EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RR RECOMMENDATION LETTER EXT.P6 : COPYOF THE DELIVERY NOTE NO.310069 DTD8.4.2001 EXT.P6A: COPY OF THE DELIVERY NOTE NO.310070 DTD 19.4.2001 EXT.P6B: COPY OF THE DELIVERY NOTE NO.310071 DTD 3.7.2001 EXT.P7: COPY OF THE DELIVERY NOTE NO.310068 DTD. 5.12.2000 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.7205 of 2011-A ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4 order of assessment finalised against the petitioner with respect to the year 2001-02, under the provisions of Kerala General Sales Tax Act (KGST Act). It is noticed that the petitioner has got an effective remedy of statutory appeal against the assessment. But, contention of the petitioner is that, during the process of finalisation of the assessment the petitioner was not in station and his place of business remained closed continuously due to some financial problems. Therefore, neither the proposal for assessment nor a copy of the order of assessment were served on the petitioner. According to the petitioner he came to know about the assessment only when recovery steps were initiated and thereafter he applied and obtained a certified copy of the order. It is stated that the respondents have initiated coercive steps for realising amounts covered under the order of assessment. W.P(C) No.7205 of 2011-A 2 2. In the statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent it is mentioned that the proposal notice sent to the petitioner through registered post was returned with postal endorsement as 'unclaimed'. The order of assessment was also returned with similar endorsement. It is further stated that service of the order was effected to the petitioner through village Officer, Thiruvalla. It is also mentioned that a copy of the assessment order was received subsequently by the petitioner on 22.11.2006. It is further mentioned that a certified copy of the assessment was issued to the petitioner as early as on 30.12.2006. 3. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I do not find any justifiable ground to entertain this writ petition to consider the challenge raised against Ext.P4, which is filed by-passing the statutory remedy. If the petitioner has got a case that he was not aware about the order of assessment, the petitioner can seek condonation of the delay caused in filing of the appeal before the appellate authority, by substantiating the reason which caused such delay. The petitioner can also seek appropriate interim W.P(C) No.7205 of 2011-A 3 relief from the appellate authority, pending disposal of the appeal. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed. 4. However, it is made clear that, I have not expressed any opinion regarding merits of the challenges raised against Ext.P4 and also regarding sustainability of any reasons for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It is for the appellate authority to evaluate such aspects independently. 5. In view of submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is intending to approach the appellate authority seeking appropriate relief, within a short period, I am inclined to restrain the coercive steps of recovery initiated for realising amounts covered under Ext.P4, for a period of one month from today. The Writ Petition is dismissed subject to observations and directions as above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab