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 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 2402 of 2008 ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.31327/2008 DATED 13/11/2008 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- INDIAN BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM KOCHI - 682 035 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES SQUAD NO.I, THALASSERY. 2. M/S.THIRUVEPATHY MILLS PVT.LTD., KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. SRI.S.ABDUL SALAM, SCARP MERCHANT, NEAR POLICE LANE, MILLARPET, BELLARY, KARNATAKA. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED RAFIQ. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. J.B.KOSHY, Ag.C.J. & V.GIRI, J. -------------------------------------- W.A.No.2402 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated 21st January, 2009 JUDGMENT Koshy, Ag.C.J . Exhibit P16 is an order by which the first respondent has imposed penalty on the appellant bank. According to the appellant/petitioner, it is not liable to pay any penalty or tax. The order passed is an appealable order. Learned Judge directed to file an appeal as alternate efficacious statutory remedy is available. It is also stated that recovery proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till disposal of the appeal on condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.2,00,000/= within one month from the date of the judgment. When statutory appeal is maintainable, it is not proper for this court to dispose of the matter on merit. If the order passed is without jurisdiction, that point also can be urged before the appellate authority. It was held by the Supreme Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa (AIR 1983 S.C 603) that if petitioner has efficacious remedy by way of appeal, writ petitions are not maintainable on the ground of alternate remedy for which the Act provides for a complete machinery to challenge the order passed. It is true that recovery proceedings were stayed on W.A.2402/2008 2 payment of Rs.2,00,000/=. If petitioner does not want that relief, he need not pay the amount, but can instead file an application for stay before the appellate authority. In the above circumstances, we dispose of the appeal without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file an appeal before the statutory appellate authority with a stay petition. In view of the pendency of this appeal, if the appeal is filed within three weeks from today, that should be considered according to law. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. J.B.KOSHY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE V.GIRI JUDGE tks