The petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayers:
“a. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Exhibits P10 and P11 revenue recovery proceedings.
b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to consider Exhibits P4 to P6 rectification petitions filed by petitioners 1 and 3.
c. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to consider Exhibits P7, P8 and P9 appeals filed by the 2nd petitioner.
d. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondent 3 to 5 to desist from taking any action against the petitioners under revenue recovery proceedings”
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the second petitioner is not connected with the affairs of the 1st petitioner's company and that the 3rd petitioner has not conducted any quarrying activity in his individual name. It is stated that W.P.C. No. 28882 of 2014 -2-
assessment proceedings came to be finalized on misconceived facts. It is further submitted that the third respondent has no authority to initiate RR proceedings when rectification petitions filed by the petitioners 1 & 3 under Section 66 of the KVAT Act and appeals along with stay petitions filed by the 2nd petitioner are pending before the respondents 1 and 2. Prayer is for a direction to be given to the said respondents to dispose of the same.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
3. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 1st petitioner is only the owner of the property concerned who let out the premises to the second petitioner and the grievance in this regard has already been sought to be rectified as per Exts. P4 to P6 rectification petitions which are pending consideration before the first respondent, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders therein, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this W.P.C. No. 28882 of 2014 -3-
judgment. The stay petitions, if any, filed along with Exts. P7 to P9 appeals shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the second respondent at the earliest, at any rate, within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Coercive proceedings pursuant to Exts. P10 and P11 shall be kept in abeyance till finalization of proceedings as above.
The writ petition is disposed of. Petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
kp/-