IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 495 of 2009(H) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------------- NETO NICLAVOS, PROPRIETOR, SOLAR INDUSTRIES, DOCTORPADI, NADAVARAMBU, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BOBBY JOHN SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, IRINJALAKUDA. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER(IB), O/O INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER(INT.),COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR. 3. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.I, O/O INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER (INT.), COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPELAS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 495 OF 2009 H -------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th January, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved by the proposal to complete audit assessment. According to the petitioner, he has been visited with two orders imposing penalty. One order was communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner has preferred Appeal against the same. After the Writ Petition was filed, when the matter came up today, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the other order of penalty has also been communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner has already preferred Appeal against the same. It is also pointed out that the orders of penalty have been satisfied by the petitioner by payment of the amounts. He points out that the proposed audit assessment is based on the penalties and if the proceedings are proceeded without the Appeals being finalised, it will prejudice the petitioner. I heard the learned Government Pleader also. The Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: WPC.495/09 H 2 I make it clear that the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 can go on. It is also made clear that the Authority who issued Ext.P3 shall not take a decision in the matter unless he has an opportunity to consider the orders passed in the Appeals by the petitioner against the penalty orders and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. There will be a direction to the fourth respondent to consider and take a decision on the Ext.P2A delay condonation application within a period of two weeks from today. If the delay is condoned, a decision will be taken on Ext.P2 Appeal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Likewise, there will be a further direction to take a decision on the Appeal which the petitioner submits, has been preferred as Ext.P6, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge