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. 1405 of 2010(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.M.RAJU, KARUNA AGENCIES, ARUKALIKAL, VAYALA, KOCHUTHUNDI HOUSE, PARAKODE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, OFFICE OF THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL/INTELLIGENCE-TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMECIAL TAXES, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, COMMERCIAL TAXES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 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. 1405 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P4 and P6 proceedings, whereby a huge liability to the tune of Rs.59,40,879/- has been imposed upon the petitioner under Section 67(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act 2003. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that, the petitioner is very much having a statutory remedy by way of appeal and that the petitioner has chosen to rush to this Court without exhausting the same. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner is not justified in filing the proceedings by way of Writ Petition challenging the impugned orders, particularly when effective remedy has been provided under the statute itself. In the said circumstance, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed however reserving the rights and liberties of the petitioner to challenge the impugned proceedings by filing appropriate proceedings before the Appellate authority as provided under the statute. However, considering the fact that the respondents are proceeding with the coercive steps WP(C) No.1405/2010 2 against the petitioner and also taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner might be given some breathing time to move the Appellate authority, the recovery proceedings being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month. It is made clear that, this will be subject to the orders to be passed by the appellate authority in the Appeal/I.A.s if so preferred by the petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc