IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32798 of 2010(Y) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ LAL M.VARGHESE, MEDAMANA RUBBER INDUSTRIES, MULAKULAM NORTH P.O., PIRAVOM. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. DY.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, ALLEPPEY, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR, SC,I.O.BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------ WP(C) NO. 32798 OF 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by Ext.P6 prohibitory order issued to the 3rd respondent, restraining operations in the Bank Account held by the petitioner with the 3rd respondent and demanding the 3rd respondent to remit an amount of Rs.2,54,443/- from the Account, being arrears of tax due from the petitioner. 2. It is sated that the amount sought to be recovered pertains to monthly assessments completed with respect to the months from April, 2008 to November, 2008. The petitioner had filed appeals against the orders of assessments, before the first respondent. It is stated that the appeals were heard on 05.07.2010, on the basis of Ext.P3 posting notice. 2. Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner 2 WP(C) No. 32798/2010 submitted that the first respondent had already disposed of those appeals by setting aside the assessments and remanding the matter for fresh consideration. Under such circumstances, it is contended that there is no liability existing, and the prohibitory order issued under Ext.P6 need be recalled. 3. If the petitioner produces orders issued by the first respondent, setting aside the assessments in question, the authority concerned who had issued Ext.P6 order shall recall the same, and shall permit the petitioner to continue operations in the Bank Account held with the 3rd respondent. 4. Needless to say that the second respondent will be at liberty to pass fresh orders in view of the remand made. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc