IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 11223 of 2011(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K. MOIDU, PROPRIETOR, DEALER IN CEMENT, ORKATTERI. BY ADV. SRI.PULIKKOOL ABUBACKER, SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, VATAKARA P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 101. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.11223 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4 appellate order issued by the 2nd respondent. Under normal circumstances, this court may not be inclined to entertain the writ petition challenging an order of the first appellate authority, because the petitioner has got an effective remedy before the Tribunal to file second appeal. But it is submitted that the appeal was disposed of alleging non-appearance on the date when it was posted for hearing. According to the petitioner, no proper intimation regarding the posting of appeal was received. It is contended that even on the absence of a personal hearing the appellate authority had failed to appreciate merits of the grounds raised and the appeal was dismissed through a cryptic order without application of mind. 2. On a perusal of Ext.P4 it is evident that the appellate authority, eventhough had illustrated the contentions in detail, has not adverted to merits of such contentions. On the other hand, it is mentioned that the W.P.(C).11223/11 -2- petitioner had failed to produce any documentary evidence to rebut the findings of the assessing authority. Since there is no reflection regarding proper application of mind on the merits of the grounds raised with due advertence to the contentions in its real perspective I am of the view that the order impugned could not be sustained in the eye of law. 3. However, it remains a fact that the petitioner could not represent his case before the appellate authority. Under such circumstances ends of justice will be achieved, if the matter is remanded for passing fresh orders with a direction to afford a further opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P4 order is hereby quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to pass fresh orders on the appeal, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb