Wp(C)/20530/2009 Of N.k.saeed v. The Agrl.income Tax & Commercial Tax Off

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20530 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- N.K.SAEED, S/O. N.K.ABDULLA, AGED 26 YEARS, N.K.CHICKEN AGENCY, CHERUKUNNU, OTHUKKUNGAL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C. K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 20530 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 22[nd] day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The application preferred by the petitioner for registration as adealer dealing with business of 'live chicken' was turned down by thefirst respondent as per Ext.P6, which in turn was subjected to challengeby filing Ext.P7 revision petition before the second respondent. Afterconsidering the facts and figures, the second respondent passedExt.P8 order, confirming Ext.P6 order which in turn has been sought tobe challenged by filing the present Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned Government pleader as well. 3. Considering the fact that the petitioner is still having furtherremedy by way of second revision as provided under Section 59 of theAct by approaching the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Trivandrum,this Court does not find it necessary to go into the merits of the casepresented in the present Writ Petition. As such, interference is declinedand the Writ Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of thepetitioner to avail the statutory remedy provided under Section 59 of theKVAT Act. So as to enable the petitioner to avail the statutory remedyas above, the coercive steps, stated as being pursued against thepetitioner shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE