IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23495 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- EXCEL TIMBERS PVT.LIMITED, PETTA, FEROKE, CALICUT, BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, V.MAMMU. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER (A.A.) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (A.A.) KOZHIKODE-673 006. 2. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER SPECIAL CIRCLE II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE-673 006. 3. INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE-673 006. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.23495 of 2010-J ---------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T In view of the errors stated as apparent on the face of the records, in respect of Ext.P3 assessment order, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 application for rectification, which is stated as pending consideration before the first respondent. However, the second respondent also happened to take note of some mistakes (other than the mistake pointed out and sought to be rectified by the petitioner) and accordingly, Ext.P5 notice was issued to the petitioner proposing to rectify the same and to pass modified order, on receipt of which, the petitioner preferred Ext.P6 reply, referring to Ext.P4 application already preferred by the petitioner before the first respondent. On obtaining Ext.P6 reply, the second respondent issued Ext.P7 notice, asking the petitioner to produce a copy of the rectification petition stated as preferred by the petitioner and the said demand is stated as satisfied by submitting necessary copy before the second respondent. It is without any regard to the W.P(C) No.23495 of 2010-J 2 pendency of the above proceedings, that Ext.P8 revenue recovery notice has been issued, which in turn is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is at liberty to file further objections, if any, with respect to Ext.P5 notice within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and pursue it further. The first respondent is directed to consider and finalise Ext.P4 application for rectification preferred by the petitioner, in accordance with law, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, till appropriate orders are passed on Ext.P4 application for rectification, all further coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8 shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab W.P(C) No.23495 of 2010-J 3