Disposed

Keepadas Steel House v. Sales Tax Officer

Kerala HC26 Nov 2007OP/9633/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an original petition challenging demand notices for interest on tax assessed on DEPB licence sales turnover. The court directed the tax officer to treat notices as objections, provide hearing opportunities, and complete adjudication within one month, with directives to drop proceedings if not permissible. Petitioners may challenge further orders.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to file objections against demand notices, and the Sales Tax Officer was directed to provide an opportunity to be heard and complete adjudication within one month.

Keepadas Steel House Vs Sales Tax Officer — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2007 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1929

¶5

OP.No. 9633 of 2002(V)

PETITIONER:

M/S.KEEPADAS STEEL HOUSE, NEW BAZAR, MUVATTUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.VARGHESE MATHEW.

BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI

RESPONDENTS:

THE SALES TAX OFFICER, DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA

¶16

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

ORDER ON CMP 17133 OF 2002 IN OP 9633 OF 2002

¶19

DISMISSED

¶20

26.11.2007 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. 2315 2723/98-99 DATED 23.12.2001 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO. 2315 2723/99-2000 DATED 23.12.2001 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.2315 2723/98-99 DATED 31.12.2001 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.2315 2723/99-2000 DATED 31.12.2001 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 17.1.2002 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 17.1.2002 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

¶29

TRUE COPY

¶30

P.S. TO JUDGE.

¶31

C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶32

O.P. NO. 9633 OF 2002

¶33

Dated this the 26th day of November, 2007

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

Petitioner is challenging Exts. P5 and P6 notices demanding interest under Section 23(3) read with Section 23(3A) of the KGST Act for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. According to the petitioner, interest is demanded on tax assessed on the turunover of sale of DEPB licences. Petitioner's case is that petitioner had not conceded transfer of value of DEPB as turnover. However, it is seen that petitioner has not contested the assessment. Counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that other dealers have contested the liability and the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. Petitioner wants to follow up the matter as and when Supreme Court decides the case, is the case of the petitioner. In any case, it is not proper or legal to issue demand notices without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to contest interest liability. In the circumstances, O.P. is disposed of directing the first respondent to treat Exts.P5 and P6 as notices proposing interest under relevant sections of the Act referred to above, give him an opportunity

¶36

¶37

to file objections, hear the petitioner and pass orders demanding interest, if permissible under the Act by giving reasons thereof, or otherwise drop the proceedings. First respondent is directed to complete the adjudication within a period of one months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment and along with it file objections against Exts.P5 and P6 for the Officer to complete the adjudication as stated above. If petitioner has any grievance against the order to be passed by the Officer, petitioner can challenge the same before the statutory authority.

¶38

(C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge

¶39

Keepadas Steel House v. Sales Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keepadas Steel House v. Sales Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kerala State Cashew Development Vs D.Suresh Babu

Udayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Joice Stephen Vs the Addl. Sales Tax Officer

M/S.Stella Agencies Vs Intelligence Officer

M/S.Controls & Communication Technologie Vs Addl. Sales Tax Officer

Viswanathan Vs State of Kerala