IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 36136 of 2010(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S.S C JOHNSON PRODUCTS (P) LTD., (NOW KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD), WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-3, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMERCIAL MANAGER, MR.S.SRIDHAR. BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS, SRI.P.GOPINATH, SRI.RAJA KANNAN, SRI.KURYAN THOMAS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (TAXES), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMNT.,), SPECIAL CIRCLE, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682 002. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682 002. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.36136 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Assessment for the year 2001-'02 was completed against the petitioner by virtue of Ext.P1 order, which was subsequently revised as per Ext.P5. According to the petitioner, the payments made by them during the month of January and February 2002, as evident from Ext.P2 and P3 challan receipts, were not given proper credit, while finalising the assessment. Under such circumstances, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P6 application before the assessing authority seeking rectification of the assessment. Grievance of the petitioner is that without considering Ext.P6 application, steps for recovery has not been initiated to realise the amounts covered under the assessment by issuing Ext.P8 and P9 notices. Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this court to interdict with the recovery steps and to direct the 2nd respondent to rectify the order of assessment. 2. Having considered the fact that, Ext.P6 application is pending disposal before the 2nd respondent, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the same and to pass appropriate orders. W.P.(C).36136/10 -2- 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 application, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. Needless to say that the petitioner will be at liberty to produce sufficient proof regarding the payments upon which they claim credit. 5. Till such time orders are issued on Ext.P6 in view of the above directions, the respondents are restrained from recovering the amounts covered under Ext.P5, by virtue of steps initiated on the basis of Ext.P8 and P9 notices. 6. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for proper compliance. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb