IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 275 of 2007(G)
1. SHAJI K.N.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. SALES TAX OFFICER (WC & LT),
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),
4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
5. VILLAGE OFFICER,
6. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.RENNY AUGUSTINE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :30/08/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 275 of 2007 G
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is challenging Ext.P2 assessment order
passed by the assessing authority and the steps taken by the
respondents to realise the amounts stated as due, notwithstanding
the pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority and the
direction given by this Court vide Ext.P1 judgment to consider and
finalise the appeal, simultaneously directing to keep the recovery
proceedings pending till such time.
2. The matter was admitted on 09-01-2007 and an interim
stay was granted as prayed for, for a period of two weeks which,
however, is not seen extended thereafter. The learned
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that
Ext.P3 appeal preferred by the petitioner was heard by the
appellate authority on 10-01-2007 and final orders were passed on
12-01-2007, whereby Ext.P2 assessment order was set aside in
respect of the assessment year 1999-2000 and the matter was
remanded to be re-considered by the assessing authority and to
pass revised/modified assessment order in the manner as
WPC.275/07
: 2 :
prescribed therein. The learned Government Pleader also submits
that by virtue of the appellate order passed by the third
respondent, the challenge against the recovery proceedings has
lost significance and the petitioner has not come up with any
further grievance and this being the position, the matter has
become infructuous.
There is no representation for the petitioner as well. It
appears that the petitioner does not have any further grievance.
As such, the writ petition is closed without prejudice to the rights
and liabilities of the petitioner if at all any further grievance is
there.
(P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE)
aks