M/S. Hotel Doubloon vs The Assistant Commissioner … on 3 July, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 20039 of 2008(I)


1. M/S. HOTEL DOUBLOON,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT)
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),

3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR),

4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

 Dated :03/07/2008

 O R D E R
                                   K.M.JOSEPH, J.
                        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                            WP.(C) No. 20039 of 2008
                        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                        Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008

                                      JUDGMENT

Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

First respondent passed Exts.P1 and P2 assessment orders for

the years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. Third respondent issued Exts.P4 and

P5 revenue recovery notices pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2. The fourth

respondent Collector passed Ext.P6 order dated 26.2.2008 attaching the

business of the petitioner. By Ext.P3 order the appellate authority set aside

Exts.P1 and P2 assessment orders and the matter is being remitted to re-do

the assessments. According to the petitioner, thereupon Exts.P4 to P6

notices have become infructuous. According to the petitioner, by Ext.P7 the

first respondent informed the third respondent that the appellate authority

has directed to re-do the matter and therefore the revenue recovery

proceedings are to be kept in abeyance. Petitioner thereupon submitted

Ext.P8 representation before the fourth respondent praying to lift the

attachment. According to the petitioner, it has undertaken not to transfer

the ownership of the hotel until fresh assessment orders are passed. It is

also pointed out that in view of the attachment, the bank of the petitioner is

refusing to extend facilities to it.

WPC.20039/2008. 2

2. Heard learned Government Pleader also.

3. I feel that in the circumstances, a decision should be taken at

the earliest on Ext.P8 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner and also to the first respondent.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the

fourth respondent to consider and take a decision on Ext.P8 in accordance

with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the

first respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within ten days

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

(K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE)

sb