IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 33874 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SIM JOHNSON,32 YEARS,S/O.C.P.JOHNSON, CHACKOLA HOUSE,V.H.ROAD,PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE TAHSILDAR(R/R)PALAKKAD. 3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE,PALAKKAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 33874 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court for directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to refrain from pursuing the Revenue Recovery proceedings against the petitioner, based on Ext.P2 demand notice, till the correctness of the amount claimed by the 2nd respondent is settled through appropriate judicial Forum. 2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 25.11.2009, the coercive proceedings were intercepted by interim order of stay, for a period of ten days. Obviously, the said order does not exist as on date, the same having been expired on 05.12.2009 and no steps have been taken by the petitioner for extension. 3. Meanwhile, the petitioner has filed I.A.514/2009 with the following four prayers. 1. To accept the additional documents produced as Exts. P5 to P7 in to the file. 2. To implead the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam as the 4th additional respondent. 3. To direct the 4th additional respondent to dispose of the Appeals filed by the petitioner (additions Exts. WP(C) No.33874/2009 2 P5 to P7) with in a shortest definite time frame. 4. To revive and extend the interims tay granted by this Hon'ble Court in the WPC, till the disposal of the appeals filed by the petitioner before the 4th additional respondent (additional Exts.P5 to P7). 4. Obviously the prayers in the I.A. are not to subserve the main relief in the Writ Petition. It is settled that the scope of the Writ Petition cannot be widened by way of any Interlocutory Application, more so, when the Writ Petition is not sought to be amended. In the said circumstance, this Court does not find any merit in I.A.514/2009. 5. However, considering the submission that the petitioner has now approached the statutory authority by filing appeals, along with petition for stay, challenging the impugned orders passed by the Assessing Authority imposing the penalty, the matter is to be looked into and finalised by the Appellate Authority, if any such appeals have already been filed and pending. 6. Incidentally, the learned Government Pleader brought it to the notice of this Court that the petitioner had issued 7 different cheques in satisfaction of the liability, which however, were returned, as dishonoured for want of sufficiency of funds. This Court does not propose to go into the merits or demerits of the contentions raised from either side in this regard; but for observing that, if any statutory appeals and I.A.s have WP(C) No.33874/2009 3 been preferred before the Appellate Authority and the same are still pending, they shall be caused to be considered and finalized by such authority, at the earliest. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc