" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13356 of 2011(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S) :- ------------------------ SIM JOHNSON, M/S. PRINCE AGENCIES, CHAKKOLA HOUSE, V.H.ROAD, NEAR R.D.OFFICE, PLAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SMT.K.HYMAVATHY RESPONDENT(S) :- ------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, PALAKKAD - 678 001. 2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), PALAKKAD-678 001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C)No.13356 of 2011 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May 2011 J U D G M E N T Revenue recovery steps initiated pursuant to Exts.P1 to P4 notices, issued against the petitioner, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. The amounts sought to be recovered pertains to arrears of tax due from the petitioner. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the revenue recovery steps were initiated without serving copies of the orders of assessment or any demand notices and that the petitioner is not in a position to challenge the assessments or to dispute the liability. 3. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the basis of instructions, submitted that the amounts sought to be recovered pertains to liability of tax with respect to the year 2008-2009 under the W.P.(C)No.13356 of 2011 -: 2 :- Agricultural Income Tax and as well as the CST Act. It is further submitted that the assessments were completed on an exparte basis since the petitioner had failed to produce books of accounts or to file objections against the proposals for finalisation of assessment. It is further stated that the copies of the assessment orders as well as the demand notices were already send to the petitioner through registered post and the same were accepted by the petitioner on 20.2.2010. However, learned counsel for the petitioner denied such an allegation contending that the business place of the petitioner was remaining closed since a long time. 4. Considering the rival contentions, I am of the view that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the assessments, it is left open to him to resort to statutory remedy by way of appeal. Further, if the petitioner has got a case that the copies of the assessment orders and demand notices were not served on him, it is left open to him to approach the W.P.(C)No.13356 of 2011 -: 3 :- assessing authority to get certified copies of the same, in order to file appeals. At any rate, challenge against the revenue recovery steps could not be entertained on the basis of the factual aspects as pointed above. Therefore, the writ petition deserves no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, on the basis of an appeal made by learned counsel for the petitioner, recovery steps initiated pursuant to Exts.P1 to P4 is directed to be kept in abeyance for a period of one month from today, in order to facilitate the petitioner to approach the appellate authority seeking appropriate reliefs. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. Jvt "
