IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 1065 of 2011(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M/S.NOKIA PRIORITY DEALER, OPP.KALLADA REGENCY, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, RENJITH R.MENON. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOOTHIRI RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, IRINJALAKUDA - 680 121. 2. THE INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, IRINJALAKUDA - 680 121. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 1065 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P5 to P5 (D) orders of assessments issued against the petitioner. Those assessments were challenged in this writ petition without resorting to the effective alternate remedy of statutory appeal, on the basis of the contention that no effective opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before finalising the assessment. 2. On a perusal of the impugned orders of assessment, I notice that the petitioner had failed to respond to the proposal notices issued before passing the orders of assessment. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, on receipt of the proposals the brother of the petitioner who was managing the business affairs had sent a request seeking adjournment, through a letter alleged to have sent by ordinary post. However, there is no evidence forthcoming to show that such a request was made. Notwithstanding the above observations it is left open to the petitioner to challenge the assessment on the basis of denial of opportunity before the appellate authority WP(C).1065/2011 2 concerned. However, I do not find special reason warranting interference of this court in exercise of the jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Hence I am of the view that the petitioner need be relegated to the appellate authority. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. However, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that coercive steps of recovery is now being threatened and he prays that the recovery steps may be restrained for a reasonable time in order to facilitate filing of appeal before the appellate authority. 4. Under the above circumstances while dismissing the writ petition, the respondents are restrained from recovering amounts covered under Exts.P5 to P5(D) orders of assessments for a period of six weeks from today. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).1065/2011 3