IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 30TH AUGUST 2010 / 8TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 3806 of 2007(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.H. MOHAMMED BASHEER, (FORMERLY PARTNER OF M/S.K.H.VASTHRAMALIKA, PATTAMBI), KOTTAPPURATH HOUSE, MUTHUTHALA, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SALES TAX OFFICER, PATTAMBI. 2. SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, PALAKKAD. 3. TAHSILDAR, OTTAPPALAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 3806 of 2007 ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Being aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order and Ext.P2 order passed by the first appellate authority declining interference in the appeal, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 second appeal along with Ext.P4 petition before the second respondent Tribunal. However, in the meanwhile, pursuant to Ext.P2 order passed by the first appellate authority ordering remand, Ext.P5 modified assessment order was passed by the first respondent and Ext.P6 auction notice was issued which made the petitioner to approach this Court seeking for immediate interference. 2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 02-02-2007, the writ petition was admitted and the second respondent was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 petition for stay, if the same was received and formed part of the records. The coercive proceedings in respect of the movables notified as per Ext.P6 were ordered to be kept in abeyance for a period of one month which, however, is not seen extended thereafter. The learned Government Pleader appearing WPC.3806/07 : 2 : for the respondents submits that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the revenue recovery proceedings were kept in abeyance. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has not come up before this Court for any further relief or seeking the writ petition to be amended and hence it is reasonably presumed that the matter has become infructuous. There is no representation for the petitioner as well. It appears that the petitioner is no more interested with the grievance projected in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for default. (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) aks