IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2010 / 25TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23223 of 2010(C) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.K.PARAMESWARAN, ARUN VIHAR, BTS ROAD, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682 024. BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN, SMT.RUKHIYABI MOHD. KUNHI. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERRY. 2. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER II, VAT OFFICE, NORTH PARAVOOR. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 4. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERY, KOCHI-2. R1 TO R4 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23223 OF 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner, being aggrieved of Exts.P1 and P2 assessment orders in respect of the assessment years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 and also Exts.P7 and P8 orders imposing penalty, has preferred Exts.P10, P11, P12 and P13 appeals along with Exts.P10(a), P11(a), P12(a) and P13(a) petitions for stay, which are pending consideration before the 3rd respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that without any regard to the pendency of the above proceedings, the petitioner is confronted with the coercive steps which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this Writ Petition. 2. In response to the contentions raised in the Writ Petition, the 2nd respondent has filed a statement, pointing out that the petitioner has not chosen to approach this Court with clean hands, in so far as the plea of the petitioner, stating that he is not the proprietor of the business concern 'M/s Gopika Tech', Kongorpilly, is not at all correct or proper. The sequence W.P.(C) No.23223/2010 2 of events with regard to the inspection conducted, the various notices issued, the acceptance of the same as borne out by the postal acknowledgment card returned, the submission made the petitioner seeking for some time and the explanation offered etc. are described in detail, also producing copies of the relevant documents as Exts.R2(a) to R2(c). 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit today contending that the petitioner in fact had not preferred the above proceedings; nor has he subscribed his signature to the so called proceedings or postal acknowledgment cards. Since the dispute requires to be considered by the appropriate authority in the course of the fact adjudication, this Court does not propose to express anything with regard to the rival contentions. 4. Taking note of the fact that the proceedings are still pending before the 3rd respondent, the said respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P10(a), P11(a), P12(a) and P13(a), petitions for stay, in accordance with W.P.(C) No.23223/2010 3 law, as expeditiously as possible, within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The coercive proceedings, if any, being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till such time. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) ps/17/8