IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19659 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.SHWAS HOME WORKS, CC 33/2328(B) 20, ROYAL PARK APARTMENTS, NH BYE PASS ROAD, CHALIKKAVATTOM, VYTTILA P.O. KOCHI -19, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SHRI.AJAI REGHU. BY ADV. SRI.DALE P.KURIEN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AA), OFFICE OF THE DC (AA), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM. 3. M/S.CHITTILAPPALLY BUILDERS AND ENGINEERS, NO.33/2477, A8, IST FLOOR, VYSALI, ERNAKULAM BYE-PASS, KOCHI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 19659 OF 2008 M ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P2 audit assessment order and seeks a direction to dispose of Ext.P3 appeal. The petitioner also seeks a direction mandating the 3rd respondent to keep all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 in abeyance till disposal of Ext.P3 and a direction mandating the 2nd respondent not to insist on cash payment for the interim order produced as Ext.P4. Case of the petitioner in short is as follows. The petitioner is a contractor. The petitioner engages into independent contracts for construction with distinct individual buyers for apartment construction and sub contract is given jointly representing all such individual contracts to another party, treating the whole as a single unit. The sub contractor is remitting tax on behalf of the petitioner. It is while so, Ext.P2 assessment order is passed. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal wherein he moved for interim relief. Ext.P4 is an order directing the petitioner to remit 50% tax for the years 2005-06 and 2006-07 and to furnish security for the balance WPC.19659/08 : 2 : amount. 2. I heard learned Government Pleader also. I see no reason to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. I feel that the petitioner has not made out a case for disposal of the appeal filed in the year 2008 out of turn. I do not see how the petitioner can challenge the condition imposed in Ext.P4 for remitting 50% tax and furnishing security for the balance amount. Without prejudice to the contentions raised by the petitioner in the appeals, the writ petition is dismissed. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) aks