C.M.Abdul Khader vs The Sales Tax Officer on 4 September, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 1798 of 2007()


1. C.M.ABDUL KHADER, C.M.A.RICE MILL,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, III CIRCLE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY),

3. THE STATE OF KERALA  REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :04/09/2008

 O R D E R
                   H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J.
                        -------------------------------------------
                             W.A. No. 1798 of 2007
                        ------------------------------------------
                   Dated, this the 4th day of September, 2008

                                 JUDGMENT

H.L.Dattu, C.J.

This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the

learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.25078 of 2005 dated 16th March,

2007.

(2) In the writ petition filed, the petitioner had called in

question the recovery notice issued by the respondents pursuant to the

order of re-assessment passed for the assessment year 1999-2000.

(3) Curiously, in the writ petition filed, for reasons best

known, the petitioner has not even questioned the correctness or otherwise

of the re-assessment order passed by the assessing authority. Without

questioning the said order, in our opinion, the petitioner could not have

questioned the recovery notice issued, pursuant to the order of re-

assessment passed for the assessment year 1999-2000.

(4) Even otherwise also, if for any reason, the petitioner is

aggrieved by the order of re-assessment passed for the assessment year in

question and the recovery notice issued pursuant thereto, in our opinion,

he has to file an appropriate appeal before the first appellate authority as

provided under the Statute. By-passing that remedy provided under the

Statute, the petitioner could not have approached this Court.

(5) Keeping that aspect of the matter in view, the learned Single

Judge, in our opinion, has rightly rejected the writ petition. In that view

of the matter we decline to entertain this writ appeal.

Ordered accordingly.

(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE

(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE
vns/dk