The court dismissed the order passed against the petitioner's claim regarding demand of interest for belated payment of tax, remanding the matter to the first respondent to consider objections and pass orders within one month.
Order directs first respondent to consider petitioner's objections against demand of interest and pass orders within one month.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2007 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1929
OP.No. 6314 of 2002(B)
PETITIONER:
C.P.KAMALAKSHY, W/O. LATE P.GOPALAN, PARAKKOTTIL HOUSE, KUTTANASSERY P.O., OTTAPALAM.
BY ADV. SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN
RESPONDENTS:
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.P. PRADEEP
THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER ON CMP 11114 OF 2002 IN OP 6314 OF 2002
DISMISSED
21.11.2007 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.9.1994 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.7.2995 PASSED BY THE APPELLATE ASST. COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD.
EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.11.2000 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL.
EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MODIFIED ORDER DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 19.11.2002 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 24.10.2001 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 5.1.2001
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ;NIL.
TRUE COPY
P.S. TO JUDGE.
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
O.P. NO. 6314 OF 2002
Dated this the 21st day of November, 2007
JUDGMENT
This O.p. is filed against demand of interest for belated payment of tax. Petitioner challenged the assessment in first appeal. Even though first appellate authority allowed the appeal directing revision of assessment at lower rate, Tribunal restored the original assessment in second appeal. Petitioner did not make payment originally or after first appeal, but paid tax after Tribunal confirmed the assessment. Petitioner's case is that interest is not payable during the period between the first appellate order and second appellate order of the Tribunal. Government Pleader on the other hand contended that interest is payable for the total period of default, that is, from the original demand till date of payment as demand is finally sustained. Even though counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court in K. NACHIMUTHU V. STO, (1994) 95 STC 539, in support of his case, I do not think this Court should consider the issue on merits, because the Officer himself has not adjudicated this issue, but
2
assumed that interest is not under contest by the petitioner. In the circumstances, O.P. is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider petitioner's objections, Ext.P5, against demand of interest, hear the petitioner and pass orders within one month from today. Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the first respondent for compliance. The conditional order of stay granted by
this Court will continue for two months from now and thereafter recovery will be based on revised order to be issued by the first respondent.
(C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge
3
C.P. Kamalakshy
The Sales Tax Officer, Ottapalam
Dy. Tahasildar (R.R), Ottapalam
C.N.Ramachandran Nair
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
