IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5232 of 2010(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.M.JOY, S/O. MATHAI, AGED 36 YEARS, ARUMAKKAL, MANATHANA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-II, KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THALASSERY. 4. UMMER FAROOQUE, C.M.ENTERPRISES, BUILDING MATERIALS AND SAND DEALER, PANCHAYAT COMPLEX, DERILAKKATTE, MANGALORE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 5232 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated, this the 17th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T As per Ext.P8 common order passed by the first respondent in Exts.P3 and P7 appeals preferred by the petitioner challenging Exts.P1 and P5 orders in respect of the assessment and penalty, interference was declined with regard to the penalty; while the assessment has been modified to the extent as stated in Ext.P8. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the coercive steps being pursued in the meanwhile, despite the fact that Ext.P8 order itself is dated 05.02.2010 and that the same was served to the petitioner only in the last week (about two days back), whereby the petitioner has been virtually prevented from pursuing further statutory remedy against Ext.P8. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner if aggrieved of Ext.P8 in any manner is to pursue further steps, resorting to the statutory remedy as provided under the relevant provisions of law. So as to enable the petitioner to pursue such exercise, this Court finds it fit and proper to grant some reasonable time; particularly when Ext.P8 was passed just about two weeks back. Accordingly, interference is WP(C) No.5232/2010 2 declined in the Writ Petition, however reserving the rights and liberties of the petitioner as above. The recovery proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc