IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15628 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- M.S.A. MEERAN, HIDES & SKINS DEALER, ALUMPEEDIKA, OCHIRA, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. ASST. COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), COMMERCIAL TAXES SPECIAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, HARIPAD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 15628 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner approaches this court feeling aggrieved by Exts.P12 to P15 assessment orders. According to the petitioner the question at hand is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in favour of the petitioner in the previous year. It is further submitted that there is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the pre-assessment notices dated 12.2.2007 were issued to the petitioner, petitioner received the same and filed objections. The order dated 9.3.2007 is actually received by the petitioner only in October, 2007. It means that before the time the order is actually effective, the petitioner had filed its objection and there is a refusal to consider the objection and that has resulted in contravention to principles of natural justice entitling the petitioner to bypass the remedy available to the petitioner. This is the case of the petitioner. 2. The learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions. He on instructions submits that as submitted by the petitioner the pre-assessment notice dated 12.2.2007 was issued to the petitioner and it was received by the petitioner on 20.2.2007. Final assessment order dated 9.3.2007, was passed after giving the petitioner sufficient time. He further WPC.15628/2008. 2 submits that the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner had actually filed his objection is not correct. It is his case that the alleged objection was not received in the office of the first respondent. In this state of the matter, I feel that it may not be open to this court to consider the complaint of the petitioner in this writ petition. I feel that this is a matter where the petitioner has to be relegated to the appellate remedy. Having regard to the facts, the writ petition is disposed of directing that if the petitioner prefers statutory appeal against Exts.P12 to P15 within two weeks from today, the appeals will be taken up and considered on merits by the appellate authority. It is open to the petitioner to move application for stay therein. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb