High Court Kerala High Court

M.B.Anil vs The Deputy Commissioner … on 3 March, 2008

Kerala High Court
M.B.Anil vs The Deputy Commissioner … on 3 March, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 513 of 2008()


1. M.B.ANIL,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SALES TAX OFFICER,

3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.MOHANLAL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

 Dated :03/03/2008

 O R D E R
                            H.L.DATTU, C.J.   &   K.M.JOSEPH, J.

                                 ------------------------------------------

                                               W.A.No.513 of 2008

                                 ------------------------------------------

                           Dated, this the   3rd day of March,  2008


                                        JUDGMENT

H.L.Dattu, C.J.

Aggrieved by Ext.P5 revenue recovery notice issued by the third

respondent to recover the amounts due under Ext.P1 assessment order,

the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.(C) No.6106 of 2008.

2. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed an appeal against Ext.P1

assessment order. Since there is delay in filing the appeal, the petitioner

has also filed an application for condonation of delay. There is no interim

order passed by the first appellate authority granting any interim order

staying the order of assessment passed by the assessing authority.

Further, the petitioner has not even filed an application for grant of an

interim order before the first appellate authority. Since the order of

assessment is alive, it is expected of the assessing authority to execute

that order and recover the amounts due from the petitioner. In that

view of the matter, the learned Single Judge is justified in rejecting the

petitioner’s request for grant of an interim order staying the recovery

proceedings.

W.A.No.513 of 2008

2

3. We do not see any error whatsoever in the orders passed by the

learned Single Judge which would call for our interference in this appeal.

Therefore, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected

Ordered accordingly.

(H.L.DATTU)

CHIEF JUSTICE

(K.M.JOSEPH)

JUDGE

vns