IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 912 of 2010(L) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- PHILIPS ELECTRONICS INDIA LIMITED, DOOR NO.VI/160B, JUMA MASJID COMPOUND, OPP INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY, ALUPURAM-683 504. REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER-FISCAL, MR.S.VANUVAMALAI. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH JERARD SAMSOM RODRIGUES RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, RAPID ACTION, DEPT.OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. CITI BANK NA, M.G.ROAD BRANCH, ERNAKULAM 682 035. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.10.2009, COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 912 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P1 order dated 21.12.2009, whereby a penalty of Rs.26,448/- has been imposed upon the petitioner and the same is sought to be realised by issuing Ext.P2 notice dated 28.12.2009 to the 2nd respondent Bank who has furnished a Bank Guarantee in favour of the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings pursued by the first respondent are not at all correct or sustainable either on facts or in law and further that Ext.P1, along with Ext.P2, was served to the Bank only on 06.01.2010 as borne by the seal affixed by the Bank. It is also the case of the petitioner that Ext.P1 order is yet to be served upon the petitioner directly, though the copy of the same is stated as marked to the petitioner in Ext.P1. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner intends to avail the statutory remedy by filing appeal before the competent authority and that the coercive steps might be intercepted for the time being. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds WP(C) No.912/2010 2 that the petitioner is very much at liberty to avail the statutory remedy available to him against Ext.P1. If the petitioner files the statutory appeal within such period as prescribed or within two weeks from today, which is later, the same shall be considered and finalised, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of the said proceedings. All further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 will stand stayed till final orders are passed as above. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc