IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15496 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.U.MATHAI, TOBACCO & STATIONARY DEALER, PUDUKKAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, IRINJALAKKUDA. 2. THE DEPTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.) MUKUNDAPURAM, IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 15496 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: (i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to stay the proceedings in Ext.P15 notice issued by the third respondent read along with the Ext.P24 order issued by the 1st respondent. (ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 2nd respondent to consider the Ext.25 to P31 petitions at an earlier date and stay may be granted upto disposal of the petitions filed. (iii) To pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem justified in the facts and circumstances of the case; (iv) To award the cost of this proceedings to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved of the modified assessment order whereby the assessing authority modified the assessment pursuant to the appellate order, whereby, though the tax element has been reduced, the issue with regard to the 'penalty' has not been touched and no reference has been made in this regard. The case of the petitioner is that the tax liability having been brought down substantially by virtue of the modified order, there has to be substantial reduction as to the extent of penalty as well. But since nothing has been mentioned in this regard in the appellate order, the assessing authority is stated as not in a position to pass any 2 WP(C) No. 15496/2010 order with regard to this aspect; which made the petitioner to file Exts.P25 to P31 'rectification petitions' which are pending consideration before the appellate authority. The grievance of the petitioner is that the coercive steps are being pursued against the petitioner in the meanwhile, seeking to realize the entire amount as shown in Ext.P24, which is not correct or sustainable, as there cannot be any penalty to the extent as specified therein, as the tax liability is only Rs.3,95,850/-. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances and also specific prayers raised by the petitioner in the Writ Petition, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P25 to P31 petitions for rectification of the error pointed from the part of the petitioner. The final orders as above shall be passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, till such final orders are passed on Exts.P25 to P31, all further steps to recover the penalty shown in Ext.P24 shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc