IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 1593 of 2007() --------------------- {IN WPC.19439/2007 OF THIS COURT} .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN WP: PADMAJA V.PAI, W/O.K.N.VENKITESWARA PAI, SIVASAKTHI, 41/745, KRISHNASWAMY ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN SMT.R.RANJINI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WP: 1. ASST. LABOUR OFFICER GRADE-I,ERNAKULAM, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ASSESSING AUTHORITY UNDER BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE CESS ACT. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. 3. REVENUE INSPECTOR II, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY, Ag.C.J. & V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.A.No.1593 of 2007 ------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT GIRI, J. The petitioner, in W.P.(C)No.19439/07 challenges the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing her writ petition. She had constructed a residential building in the year 1996 and according to her, she received Ext.P1 notice dated 11.11.2003 from the 1st respondent, the assessing officer, under the Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act {for short “the Act”}. She then submitted a return in Form No.1, disclosing a cost of construction as Rs.16 lakhs. It seems that Ext.P4 order of assessment was passed thereafter on 24.8.2004 assessing the petitioner for an amount of Rs.31,865/- towards the cess payable under the Act and also levying an amount of Rs.63,733/- by way of penalty. 2. It is the petitioner's contention that she was not served with a pre-assessment notice and that she was also unaware of Ext.P4 order. According to the petitioner W.A.No.1593 of 2007 :: 2 :: she was unaware of Ext.P6 order dated 9.8.2005 also, by which a penalty of Rs.63,733/- was imposed on the petitioner. Ext.P6 refers to a show cause notice dated 30.3.2005. The petitioner challenged Exts.P4 and P6. 3. Learned single Judge declined to consider the petitioner's challenge to Exts.P4 and P6 on merits, taking note of the fact that the writ petition was filed only on 27.6.2007, challenging Ext.P4 order passed on 24.8.2004 and Ext.P6 order dated 9.8.2005. It is this judgment of the learned single Judge that has been challenged in this writ appeal. 4. We have heard the counsel on either side. 5. The appellant has not been able to put forward any tenable reason for not pursuing the appellate remedy as against Exts.P4 and P6 and for not approaching this court within a reasonable time of the passing of Exts.P4 and P6. The explanation given by the appellant for the alleged ignorance of the passing of Exts.P4 and P6 does not seem to be tenable, especially in the light of Ext.P5 communication, which acknowledges the receipt of Ext.P4. W.A.No.1593 of 2007 :: 3 :: Ext.P5 is a letter, which was sent from one M/s.KNG Textiles, in which, admittedly the petitioner's son and husband are partners. While conveying a regret for not replying to Ext.P4 notice in time, the author of Ext.P5, one of the partners of KNG Textiles, mentions that the petitioner's address given in Ext.P4 was wrong; and the assessment proceedings relate to construction of a residential building by the petitioner. It seems that the notices which were actually received by M/s.KNG Textiles were then returned. It is quite far-fetched on the part of the petitioner to ignore the contents of Ext.P5, which acknowledges the receipt of Ext.P4 notice. After all, it is her husband and son who are partners of the firm and a technical contention that she need not, therefore, be imputed with the knowledge of Ext.P4 does not merit acceptance. 6. It is also relevant to note that Ext.P6 order itself was passed on 9.8.2005 and the petitioner does not even attempt to deny the due receipt of Ext.P6. We also think, it is relevant to note that even according to the W.A.No.1593 of 2007 :: 4 :: petitioner, she was aware of Ext.P2 revenue recovery notice because, her son had informed her of the same. The address given in Ext.P2 is the same as that given in Exts.P4 and P6. 7. Therefore, apart from agreeing with the learned single Judge that there is unexplained delay on the part of the petitioner in mounting a challenge against Exts.P4 and P6, we also hold that the petitioner was not entitled to approach this court directly without availing of a statutory appellate remedy as against Exts.P4 and P6. For all these reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- (J.B. KOSHY) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge