IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5798 of 2011(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S.OCEANUS DWELLINGS (P) LTD., PRIYADARSINI NAGAR, PUTHOOR, PALAKKAD-678 001, REPRESENTED BY K.A. FRANCIS, REGIONAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON, SMT.MEERA V.MENON, SRI.MAHESH V.MENON. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, (WORKS CONTRACT), PALAKKAD, 678 001. 2. INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SALES TAX COMPLEX, PALAKKAD, 678 001. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 5798 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging Ext.P2 order through which penalty was imposed under section 67(1) of the KVAT Act. According to the petitioner, best judgment assessment was completed against them with respect to the very same period, and the petitioner had challenged the assessment in appeal which is pending consideration and disposal. Initiation of proceedings for imposing penalty under section 67(1) was totally unwarranted and unsustainable, under such circumstances, is the contention. 2. Having noticed that the petitioner has got an effective alternative remedy by way of statutory appeal against Ext.P2, it is not proper and justified on the part of this court to interfere with the proceedings. Grievance of the petitioner is that coercive steps of recovery has now been initiated under Ext.P3. It is submitted that, the petitioner was under the impression that since appeal was already filed against the order of assessment, no separate appeal from Ext.P2 was necessary. WP(C) .5798/2011 2 However, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this court to the limited extent of restraining recovery steps for a short period, in order to facilitate the petitioner to file appeal against Ext.P2 order. I am of the view that the limited relief can be considered. 3. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to keep in abeyance collection and recovery of amounts covered under Ext.P2 initiated pursuant to Ext.P3 notice, for a period of one month from today, in order to facilitate the petitioner to approach the appellate authority and to seek appropriate remedy. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C) .5798/2011 3