IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 36700 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.MOON TIMBER SUPPLIERS,VII 439 J, PUTHANKUDY BUILDING, ALLAPRA POST,PERUBAVOOR, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.C.M.MUJEEB. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,REP.BY THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE, II CIRCLE,PERUMBAVOOR 683 542. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT,MUVATTUPUZHA,ERNAKULAM 686 661. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER,FEDERAL BANK, PERUMBAVOOR 683 542. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.36700 of 2010-J ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2 assessment and consequential recovery steps initiated as per Exts.P3 and P4 notices. The petitioner inter alia prays for a direction against the 2nd respondent to issue delivery note to the petitioner so as to continue his business. 2. It is noticed that against Ext.P2 order of assessment, the petitioner has got an effective remedy by way of statutory appeal. Without resorting to such remedy the challenge against Ext.P2 could not be entertained in this writ petition filed under Article 226. Therefore, I am of the view that it is not proper for this Court to interfere with Ext.P2 order of assessment and the consequential demands raised thereunder. 3. With respect to issuance of delivery notes, it is noticed that the same was subject matter of an earlier writ petition filed before this Court as W.P(C) No.32814 of 2009. W.P(C) No.36700 of 2010-J 2 The petitioner was directed for payment of additional security deposit under Section 17(1) of the Act and on the premise that he had not complied with such demand the issuance of delivery notes was denied. The demand for additional security was challenged before this Court in the said writ petition. This Court permitted the petitioner to file objections if any against such demand. Further this Court made it clear that the authority can consider the request for issuance of delivery notes independently with that of the demand for payment of additional security. 4. It is brought to my notice by learned Government Pleader that, the demand for additional security deposit was confirmed subsequently and that the petitioner had again approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.9303 of 2010. The limited prayer raised in that writ petition was only for providing three months time to furnish the additional security deposit. Through judgment dated 19.3.2010, W.P (C) No.9303 of 2010 was disposed of granting six weeks time to the petitioner to furnish the requirement regarding W.P(C) No.36700 of 2010-J 3 additional security deposit. Till such time, this court had directed the respondents to refrain from interfering in any manner with the petitioner's business activities. It is further noticed that the petitioner had subsequently filed I.A.No.7349 of 2010 in W.P(C) No.9303 of 2010 seeking more time for furnishing the security, in compliance with the directions contained in the judgment. This Court had shown further indulgence in extending the period stipulated for payment by one month from 19.5.2010, through order dt.17.6.2010. 5. It is also noticed that with respect to demand raised in Ext.P3, the petitioner had filed yet another writ petition No.16546 of 2010. While disposing that matter this Court observed that the request was only for some breathing time to clear the liability and that the petitioner is not having any challenge on merits. Considering such request the petitioner was directed to clear the liability mentioned in Ext.P3 within ten days from the date of judgment. The judgment in W.P(C) No.16546 of 2010 was W.P(C) No.36700 of 2010-J 4 issued by this Court on 2.6.2010. 6. It is noticed that, filing of W.P(C) No.9303 of 2010 as well as W.P(C) No.16546 of 2010 were not seen disclosed in the present writ petition. It is evident that the petitioner is not approaching this Court with clean hands. 7. Under such circumstances I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for any reliefs claimed in this writ petition. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab