IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 W.A.No. 1798 of 2007 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.25078/2005 DATED 16/03/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- C.M.ABDUL KHADER, C.M.A. RICE MILL, CHERAMADU, ERIMAYOOR, ALATHUR (P.O), PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, III CIRCLE, AGRICULTURE INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES & REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQ THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A. No. 1798 of 2007 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 4th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.25078 of 2005 dated 16th March, 2007. (2) In the writ petition filed, the petitioner had called in question the recovery notice issued by the respondents pursuant to the order of re-assessment passed for the assessment year 1999-2000. (3) Curiously, in the writ petition filed, for reasons best known, the petitioner has not even questioned the correctness or otherwise of the re-assessment order passed by the assessing authority. Without questioning the said order, in our opinion, the petitioner could not have questioned the recovery notice issued, pursuant to the order of re- assessment passed for the assessment year 1999-2000. (4) Even otherwise also, if for any reason, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of re-assessment passed for the assessment year in question and the recovery notice issued pursuant thereto, in our opinion, he has to file an appropriate appeal before the first appellate authority as provided under the Statute. By-passing that remedy provided under the Statute, the petitioner could not have approached this Court. (5) Keeping that aspect of the matter in view, the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly rejected the writ petition. In that view of the matter we decline to entertain this writ appeal. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE vns/dk