Wp(C) v. Agrl. Income Tax And Sales Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2011 / 2ND ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 7205 of 2011(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.GOPINATHAN,M/S.S.G.TIMBERS, VELLAMUNDA,WAYANAD DISTRICT,NOW RESIDING AT VALSALA BHAVAN, T.P.1/628,THIRUVALLOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST BY ADV. SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE AGRL.INCOME TAX & SALES TAX OFFICER DEPT.OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,MANATHAVADY-670645 2. THE INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, DEPT.OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,WAYANAD-673121 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7205 of 2011(A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DT.18.12.2006 EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.13.12.2006 EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD.23.2.2011. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.34120786 DT.20.6.2006 EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RR RECOMMENDATION LETTER EXT.P6 : COPYOF THE DELIVERY NOTE NO.310069 DTD8.4.2001 EXT.P6A: COPY OF THE DELIVERY NOTE NO.310070 DTD 19.4.2001 EXT.P6B: COPY OF THE DELIVERY NOTE NO.310071 DTD 3.7.2001 EXT.P7: COPY OF THE DELIVERY NOTE NO.310068 DTD. 5.12.2000 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.7205 of 2011-A ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23[rd] day of June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4 orderof assessment finalised against the petitioner with respectto the year 2001-02, under the provisions of Kerala GeneralSales Tax Act (KGST Act). It is noticed that the petitionerhas got an effective remedy of statutory appeal against theassessment. But, contention of the petitioner is that, duringthe process of finalisation of the assessment the petitionerwas not in station and his place of business remained closedcontinuously due to some financial problems. Therefore,neither the proposal for assessment nor a copy of the orderof assessment were served on the petitioner. According tothe petitioner he came to know about the assessment onlywhen recovery steps were initiated and thereafter heapplied and obtained a certified copy of the order. It isstated that the respondents have initiated coercive steps forrealising amounts covered under the order of assessment. 2 2.In the statement filed on behalf of the 1[st]respondent it is mentioned that the proposal notice sent tothe petitioner through registered post was returned withpostal endorsement as 'unclaimed'. The order ofassessment was also returned with similar endorsement. Itis further stated that service of the order was effected to thepetitioner through village Officer, Thiruvalla. It is alsomentioned that a copy of the assessment order was receivedsubsequently by the petitioner on 22.11.2006. It is furthermentioned that a certified copy of the assessment wasissued to the petitioner as early as on 30.12.2006. 3.Under the above mentioned circumstances, I donot find any justifiable ground to entertain this writ petitionto consider the challenge raised against Ext.P4, which isfiled by-passing the statutory remedy. If the petitioner hasgot a case that he was not aware about the order ofassessment, the petitioner can seek condonation of thedelay caused in filing of the appeal before the appellateauthority, by substantiating the reason which caused suchdelay. The petitioner can also seek appropriate interim Under the above mentioned circumstances, I do W.P(C) No.7205 of 2011-A 3 3.Under the above mentioned circumstances, I donot find any justifiable ground to entertain this writ petitionto consider the challenge raised against Ext.P4, which isfiled by-passing the statutory remedy. If the petitioner hasgot a case that he was not aware about the order ofassessment, the petitioner can seek condonation of thedelay caused in filing of the appeal before the appellateauthority, by substantiating the reason which caused suchdelay. The petitioner can also seek appropriate interim Under the above mentioned circumstances, I do W.P(C) No.7205 of 2011-A 3 relief from the appellate authority, pending disposal of theappeal. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the writpetition is not maintainable and the same is accordinglydismissed. 4.However, it is made clear that, I have notexpressed any opinion regarding merits of the challengesraised against Ext.P4 and also regarding sustainability ofany reasons for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Itis for the appellate authority to evaluate such aspectsindependently. 5.In view of submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is intending to approachthe appellate authority seeking appropriate relief, within ashort period, I am inclined to restrain the coercive steps ofrecovery initiated for realising amounts covered underExt.P4, for a period of one month from today. The Writ Petition is dismissed subject to observationsand directions as above. C.K.ABDUL REHIMJUDGE