IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 8206 of 2009(U) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SALOMI SCARIA, W/O.SCARIA, PROPRIETOR, ST.GEORGE HOLLOW BRICKS, THOOKKUPALAM, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE AIT AND SALES TAX OFFICER, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 8206 OF 2009 U -------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P2. Ext.P2 is a notice issued under Section 7 of the Revenue Recovery Act. According to petitioner, she had preferred an Appeal against the assessment order and by Ext.P1, the Appellate Authority had directed the matter to be redone. It is stated that no steps have been taken and there is no re- assessment and in the meantime, the petitioner received Ext.P2 demand notice. Learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that pursuant to Ext.P1 order, a modified order has been passed on 10.11.2008 and it has been communicated to the petitioner also. In such circumstances, I do not see any basis to maintain a Writ Petition challenging the demand notice without challenging the modified assessment order. The Writ Petition is disposed of without prejudice to the petitioner's right to take WPC.8206/09 U 2 such steps as she is advised against the modified assessment order. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge