By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 9TH MAGHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 41232 of 2017 ----------------------- PETITIONER ---------- M/S. CAVANAL RUBBER ESTATES (P) LTD, ADOOR TOWERS, ADOOR P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT REPRESNETED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JOSE THOMAS BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE AGRL. INCOME TAX AND COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KANJIRAPPILLY- 686 507 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)-II, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM- 686 001 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, ADOOR- 691 523 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-01-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.V. -------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS----------------------- EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2006-07 DATED 31.5.2012EXHIBIT P1(A) COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2007-08 DATED 6.3.2012EXHIBIT P1(B) COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2008-09 DATED `19.6.2012EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.10.2016EXHIBIT P2(A) COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.10.2016 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL--------------------- /TRUE COPY/K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J ...................................................... W.P.C.No.41232 of 2017 ......................................................Dated this, the 29[th] day of January, 2018 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred challenging Ext.P2 series appellate orders passed under the KeralaAgricultural Income-tax Act. The impugned orders areappealable under the said statue. Exceptional reasons, onwhich this Court can entertain a writ petition under Article226 of the Constitution challenging orders in the nature ofone impugned in the writ petition, even while the partyhas an effective alternative remedy by way of appealunder the statute, have not been made out by thepetitioner. In the said view of the matter, the writ petitionis disposed of without prejudice to the right of thepetitioner to challenge the impugned orders in appealunder the statute. However, in the peculiar facts of thiscase, it is directed that further proceedings for realisationof the amounts covered by Ext.P1 series orders which W.P.C.No. 41232/2017 : 2 : have been affirmed in the impugned orders shall bedeferred for a period of two weeks, so as to enable thepetitioner to prefer appeals. Sd/-P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE // True copy // PA to Judge hmh