IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2010 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 27266 of 2005(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M.A.K.AZAD, M/S.INTERNATIONAL MERCANTISE TRADES & EXPORTS (P) LTD., HIG-19, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, COCHIN. BY ADV. MS. T.S.MAYA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM. 3. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. V.K. SHAMSUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No. 27266 OF 2005 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 3rd day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The prayers in the Writ Petition are as follows. A] Declare by an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Ext. P IV passed by the first respondent. B] Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to follow the direction given to him as per Ext. P III ignoring the Ext. IV order of the 1st respondent. C] Issue an interim stay of the further proceedings initiated by the authorities against Exhibit IV orders D] Issue any other as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper for redressal in the facts and circumstances of the cases. The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the course and conduct of the respondents in connection with the imposition of penalty in respect of the different assessment years viz. 1999 – '00 and 2000 – 01. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that, the orders imposing penalty were subjected to challenge by filing revision petitions before the second respondent. In respect of one assessment year, the order was set aside and remanded, while in respect of the other, some modification was made and the original authority was directed to pass a modified order in terms thereof. With regard to the order directing modification of the concerned penalty order, the assessee W.P. (C) No. 27266 of 2005 2 preferred a further revision before the first respondent. When the matters were pending, the original authority, pursuant to the orders passed by the second respondent, passed a fresh penalty order, which in turn was subjected to challenge by filing W.P. (C) No. 13871 of 2005, culminating in Ext. P3 judgment, whereby the assessee was relegated to avail the remedy of revision before the second respondent. The learned government Pleader further submits that the assessee preferred revision petitions, which however were considered on merits and they have been finalized and no such proceedings are pending as on date. 3. When the writ petition is taken up for hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner, as well. As such, this Court does not propose to go into the merits of the case. The Writ Petition is dismissed for no prosecution. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd