IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1113 of 2006(G)
1. K.R.RAVEENDRA NATH, PARTNER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. THE SALES TAX OFFICER,
4. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
5. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
6. KERALA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :07/08/2008
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.1113 of 2006
------------------------------
Dated, this the 7th Day of August, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner’s case is that recovery is initiated without revision of
assessment pursuant to Ext.P5. Learned Government Pleader on
instruction submitted that in spite of repeated notices, petitioner
did not appear and therefore fresh orders are issued pursuant to
Ext.P5. If revised orders are issued, then the remedy available to
petitioner is only filing of appeal against the revised orders, if there
is any continued grievance. There is no scope for this Court
considering factual disputes on service of notice pursuant to Ext.P5.
Petitioner has no case that he approached or ever requested the
Assessing Officer to revise the assessment pursuant to the
appellate order issued on 08/10/1999. However, since the writ
petition is pending in this Court for over two years, I feel one more
opportunity can be given to petitioner to produce the records before
3rd respondent for rectification of revised orders already issued and
if petitioner produces records 3rd respondent will verify the same
and make modification of revised assessment to the extent required
WP(C) No.1113/2006
-2-
in rectification proceedings ignoring time bar provided under Section
43 of the Act. Petitioner is granted one month’s time from today for
compliance of the judgment. However, if petitioner does not
produce copy of the records relied on by him by producing this
judgment and after obtaining posting notice from 3rd respondent,
recovery can be continued based on the present orders after one
month from now. However, if petitioner produces the records
before the 3rd respondent as above, rectified orders should be
issued by him without any delay and recovery will be made in terms
of such orders to be issued as above. Petitioner will be served with
copy of the revised orders on production of copy of the judgment,
for him to request for rectification based on directions issued as
above.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)
jg