IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7529 of 2011(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- ABDUL HAKKIM, KOTTAMEETTIL HOUSE, CHIKKANAMPARA, PALAKKADU DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (AUTHORISED OFFICER RR), CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD- 678 001. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.5, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKADU-678 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KRK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7529 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against the revenue recovery steps initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 and P2 notices. According to the petitioner, the amount sought to be recovered relates to sales tax requisitioned by the 2nd respondent in relation to alleged illegal transport of Poultry, effected by the petitioner. It is submitted that, with respect to an alleged incident which happened on 13.9.2010, a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner at the instance of the 2nd respondent, for offences punishable under Section 353 IPC read with Section 3(2)(e) of the PDPP Act. Ext.P3 is the final report submitted in that case. The allegation is that, the petitioner along with other two persons had caused damage to the departmental Jeep by hitting with another vehicle. The petitioner is challenging the recovery steps on the basis that the amount could not be realised till the disposal of the criminal case. 2. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on the basis of instructions, submitted that the amount sought to be recovered through revenue recovery steps W.P.(C).7529/2011 -2- pertains to penalty imposed under Section 70B of the KVAT Act. The penalty proceedings was finalised against the petitioner after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing and after issuing proposal notice. It is stated that the order of penalty (No.CR-V/3/2010-11 dt.7.10.2010) was served on the petitioner and since he failed in effecting payment, the revenue recovery requisition was issued. 3. Considering the fact that the amount sought to be recovered pertains to penalty imposed against the petitioner, I take note of the fact that, an effective remedy by way of statutory appeal is available to the petitioner. Therefore it is not proper on the part of this court to interfere with the recovery steps, since the petitioner has not resorted to any such remedy. Merely because a criminal case is pending disposal with respect to an incident which led to imposition of penalty, realisation of the penalty amount could not be restrained. 4. However, I am of the view that indulgence can be shown in relegating the petitioner to appellate authority. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file statutory appeal against the order imposing penalty, if necessary after obtaining certified copy of the order from the respondent, on usual terms. It will be left open to the petitioner to seek appropriate interim relief from the appellate authority, W.P.(C).7529/2011 -3- pending disposal of appeal if any filed. 5. In order to facilitate the petitioner to invoke statutory remedy, the recovery steps now initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 and P2 is directed to be kept in abeyance for a period of two months. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb