Central Public Works Department vs The Sales Tax Officer (Wc & Lt) on 3 December, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 13998 of 2007(N)


1. CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SALES TAX OFFICER (WC & LT),
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),

3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

4. STATE BANK OF INDIA, TRICHUR BRANCH,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BOBY JOHN, CGC

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :03/12/2010

 O R D E R
               P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                 W.P (C) No. 13998 OF 2007
                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
         Dated, this the 3rd day of December, 2010

                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:

i. to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other

appropriate writ or order quashing Ext. P13 order passed by the

second respondent.

ii. to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other

appropriate writ or order quashing Ext. P15 prohibitory order

passed by the third respondent.

iii. to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other

appropriate writ or order directing the 3rd respondent not to take

any recovery steps pursuant to Exts. P1 to P4 assessment

orders during the pendency of Exts. P5 to P8 appeals.

iv. to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other

appropriate writ or order directing the 4th respondent to permit the

petitioner to effect transaction in its account (A/c No.

10584643033) after retaining an amount of Rs. 64,75,018/- in the

bank account.

v. to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other

appropriate writ or order directing the second respondent to

dispose of Exts. P5 to P8 appeals expeditiously within a time

limit fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

vi. to pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems

justified in the facts and circumstances of the case;

and

vii. to award the cost of this proceedings to the petitioner.

W.P. (C) No. 13998 of 2007
2

2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on

27.04.07, it was admitted, also granting interim stay of Ext. P15 for a period

of two months, on condition that, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rupees

Thirty lakhs within one month.

3. The matter was not brought up further for extension of the interim

order. When the writ petition is taken up for hearing, there is no

representation for the petitioner, as well. It appears that the petitioner is no

more interested with the cause of action projected in this Writ Petition.

Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non prosecution.

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

kmd