IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33874 of 2009(D)
1. SIM JOHNSON,32 YEARS,S/O.C.P.JOHNSON,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR(R/R)PALAKKAD.
3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :18/01/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
-----------------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 33874 of 2009
--------------------------------------
Dated, this the 18th day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has approached this Court for directing the 1st and
2nd respondents to refrain from pursuing the Revenue Recovery
proceedings against the petitioner, based on Ext.P2 demand notice, till
the correctness of the amount claimed by the 2nd respondent is settled
through appropriate judicial Forum.
2. When the matter came up for consideration before this
Court on 25.11.2009, the coercive proceedings were intercepted by
interim order of stay, for a period of ten days. Obviously, the said order
does not exist as on date, the same having been expired on 05.12.2009
and no steps have been taken by the petitioner for extension.
3. Meanwhile, the petitioner has filed I.A.514/2009 with the
following four prayers.
1. To accept the additional documents produced as
Exts. P5 to P7 in to the file.
2. To implead the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals),
Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam as the 4th additional
respondent.
3. To direct the 4th additional respondent to
dispose of the Appeals filed by the petitioner (additions Exts.
WP(C) No.33874/2009
2
P5 to P7) with in a shortest definite time frame.
4. To revive and extend the interims tay granted by
this Hon’ble Court in the WPC, till the disposal of the appeals
filed by the petitioner before the 4th additional respondent
(additional Exts.P5 to P7).
4. Obviously the prayers in the I.A. are not to subserve the main
relief in the Writ Petition. It is settled that the scope of the Writ Petition
cannot be widened by way of any Interlocutory Application, more so, when
the Writ Petition is not sought to be amended. In the said circumstance,
this Court does not find any merit in I.A.514/2009.
5. However, considering the submission that the petitioner has
now approached the statutory authority by filing appeals, along with
petition for stay, challenging the impugned orders passed by the
Assessing Authority imposing the penalty, the matter is to be looked into
and finalised by the Appellate Authority, if any such appeals have already
been filed and pending.
6. Incidentally, the learned Government Pleader brought it to the
notice of this Court that the petitioner had issued 7 different cheques in
satisfaction of the liability, which however, were returned, as dishonoured
for want of sufficiency of funds. This Court does not propose to go into
the merits or demerits of the contentions raised from either side in this
regard; but for observing that, if any statutory appeals and I.A.s have
WP(C) No.33874/2009
3
been preferred before the Appellate Authority and the same are still
pending, they shall be caused to be considered and finalized by such
authority, at the earliest.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dnc