IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 24TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 18341 of 2005(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- V.M. KHADERKUTTY METHAR, MOIDEENA HOUSE, VADUTHALA JETTY P.O., MATTATHIL BHAGOM, AROOKUTTY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR SRI.JAIRAM.V.MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER-II, SALES TAX OFFICE, CHERTHALA. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA. 3. T.K.MONI, THANOMVELI, PANAVALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. RAJEEVAN, VAZHAKKATTU, PALLURUTHY P.O., KOCHI-6. 5. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), TALUK OFFICE, CHERTHALA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.P. PRADEEP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C)18341/2005 APPENDIX PETIIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.2004 FOR THE YEAR 2000-01. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REVISION DATED 16.6.2005 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FR STAY OF COLLECTION OF INTEREST DATED 16.6.2005 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY DATED 16.6.2005 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RR NOTICE DATED 23.5.2005 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER AND TO THE RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT UNDER SECTIN 7 OF THE RR ACT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RR NOTICE DATED 24.5.2005 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER AND TO THE RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE RR ACT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. = = = = = = = = == = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 18341 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 were the partners of a firm which was being run under the name and style "M/s. Three Star Mines" and was doing business in the field of silica sand. The assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act was completed by the first respondent, passing Ext.P1 assessment order, adopting a higher rate of tax, as the requisite 'C' Form could not be produced by the assessee and further since some bills were not properly accounted, simultaneously charging interest as well. Met with such circumstance, the firm preferred Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 petition for stay and also Ext.P4 application to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Without any regard to the pendency of the above proceedings, Exts.P5 and P6 notices were issued under the Revenue Recovery Act, seeking to recover the alleged dues, which made the petitioner to approach this Court, by filing the above writ petition. 2. When the matter came up for consideration on 20.6.2005, the writ petition was admitted, also granting interim stay on condition that petitioner WP(C) 18341/2005 2 deposits a sum of Rs.25,000/- within two weeks. The interim stay was extended until further orders on 2.12.2005 pursuant to I.A. 17471 of 2005 for revival and extension. The prayer in the writ petition is to direct the second respondent to consider and pass final orders on Ext.P2 application for revision which has been filed by the firm, mainly challenging the levy of interest and on such other grounds. 3. The learned Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents submits that the matter is more than five years old now and by all probability, the second respondent / revisional authority would have finalized Ext.P2 revision. A suspicion is made with reference to the year of the appeal and on the basis of the information as to the backlog, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter requires to be verified from the part of the petitioner,. Since the writ petition has not been caused to be amended on the part of the petitioner, it has to be reasonably presumed that no adverse consequence has been resulted in respect of the claim in the revision petition. In the above circumstance, this Court does not find to have a merit adjudication in the present writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider and finalise Ext.P2 revision in accordance with law, within a period of one WP(C) 18341/2005 3 month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if the same is still pending. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) KNC/-