High Court Kerala High Court

A.M.Joy vs The Deputy Commissioner … on 17 February, 2010

Kerala High Court
A.M.Joy vs The Deputy Commissioner … on 17 February, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 5232 of 2010(D)


1. A.M.JOY, S/O. MATHAI, AGED 36 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-II,

3. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,

4. UMMER FAROOQUE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.C.JAMES

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :17/02/2010

 O R D E R
              P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
                -----------------------------------------------
                        WP(C) No. 5232 of 2010
                     ---------------------------------------
             Dated, this the 17th day of February, 2010


                             J U D G M E N T

As per Ext.P8 common order passed by the first respondent in

Exts.P3 and P7 appeals preferred by the petitioner challenging Exts.P1

and P5 orders in respect of the assessment and penalty, interference

was declined with regard to the penalty; while the assessment has been

modified to the extent as stated in Ext.P8. The petitioner is before this

Court challenging the coercive steps being pursued in the meanwhile,

despite the fact that Ext.P8 order itself is dated 05.02.2010 and that the

same was served to the petitioner only in the last week (about two days

back), whereby the petitioner has been virtually prevented from pursuing

further statutory remedy against Ext.P8.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner if

aggrieved of Ext.P8 in any manner is to pursue further steps, resorting

to the statutory remedy as provided under the relevant provisions of law.

So as to enable the petitioner to pursue such exercise, this Court finds it

fit and proper to grant some reasonable time; particularly when Ext.P8

was passed just about two weeks back. Accordingly, interference is

WP(C) No.5232/2010
2

declined in the Writ Petition, however reserving the rights and liberties of

the petitioner as above. The recovery proceedings stated as being

pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for a period of

one month.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dnc