IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15460 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- THE BRANCH MANAGER, KERALA ROADWAYS LTD, (A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT)AND HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT KRS BUILDING, INDIRA GANDHI ROAD, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.AJAY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER - I, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.15460 of 2010-F ---------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P3 assessment order, which stands modified as per Ext.P5, pursuant to the objection raised from the part of the petitioner. Petitioner is aggrieved of the coercive proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act, notwithstanding the pendency of the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner and the interlocutory application to condone the delay and also for interim stay. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only a transporter and that he has absolutely no connection with the goods. Ext.P3 assessment order passed by the first respondent was strongly objected from the part of the petitioner referring to the factual position, denying the entire transaction and it was in the said circumstance, that the first respondent chose to modify the assessment order as borne by Ext.P5. The learned counsel further submits that the materials supplied on a petition filed under the relevant provisions of the Right to Information Act seeking for the necessary particulars reveal W.P(C) No.15460 of 2010-F 2 that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of an invoice (Ext.P7), which however does not mention anything about the role or involvement of the petitioner. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Considering the particular facts and circumstances and the sequence of events, this Court finds that there is considerable force in the submission made from the part of the petitioner, so as to have the appeal itself to be considered and disposed of, along with interlocutory application for condoning the delay, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to consider and finalise Ext.P8 appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P3 assessment order, along with Ext.P8(a) petition to condone the delay, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that till such final orders are passed, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON ab JUDGE