Allowed

Vyshak International Hotel (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)

Kerala HC11 Jun 2007WA/1345/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court considered a writ appeal against a single Judge's order that contained observations hindering the disposal of pending statutory appeals. The Court set aside the lower order and directed the authorities to dispose of the pending matters within three months ignoring the impropriate observations.

What did the court decide?

The order of the single Judge was set aside and a direction was given to the Appellate and Revisional Authorities to dispose of the pending appeals and revisions within three months.

Vyshak International Hotel (P) Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) — Kerala HC (2007) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶5

MONDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2007 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1929

¶6

WA.No. 1345 of 2007() {IN W.P.(C)NO.14784/2007 OF THIS COURT}

¶7

APPELLANT:

¶8

VYSHAK INTERNATIONAL HOTEL (P) LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JOSE ELLICKAL, PAYYANNUR.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER & SMT.S.LAKSHMY

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE.

¶12

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KANNUR.

¶13

COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE, PAYYANNUR.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL

¶15

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2007 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶17

W.A.No.1345 of 2007

¶18

Dated this the 11^th day of June, 2007.

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

H.L.DATTU, C.J.

¶21

Learned Government Pleader Sri.Mathew George Vadakkel is directed to take notice for respondents. He is permitted to file his memo of appearance within six weeks from today.

¶22

The matter is posted for admission. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing, since the issue involved in this appeal lies in a narrow compass.

¶23

This appeal is directed the against the orders passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C)No.14784/07 dated 25.5.2007.

¶24

In the writ petition, the petitioner had only sought for the following directions. They are:

¶25

“for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to dispose of the appeals and revisions filed by the petitioner for the period December, 2005 and January, 2006.”

¶26

There was no other prayer in the writ petition.

¶27

The learned single Judge, while considering the aforesaid

¶28

prayer sought for in the writ petition, has made certain observations and those observations, in our opinion, may come in the way of the appellate authority and revisional authority independently considering the grievance of the applicant in the appeals and the revisions, that are pending before them. In our considered view, for granting or refusing the prayer sought

¶29

W.A.No.1345 of 2007

¶30

:: 2 ::

¶31

for, the observations made by the learned single Judge, in our opinion were uncalled for and unwarranted. Therefore, we cannot sustain the orders passed by the learned single Judge.

¶32

The only request of the petitioner, as we have already noticed, is to direct respondents 1 and 2 to consider and dispose of the statutory appeals and statutory revisions filed by the petitioner. If the prayer sought for is granted, no injustice would have been done to the respondents. In that view of the matter, the following order is passed:

¶33

(1) The order passed by the learned single Judge is set aside.

¶34

(2) A direction is given to the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority to consider and dispose of the appeals and revisions for the period December, 2005 and January, 2006, said to be pending before them as early as possible, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and while doing so, the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority shall not be influenced by any of the observations made by the learned single Judge. Ordered accordingly.

¶35

Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

H.L.DATTU CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

K.T.SANKARAN

JUDGE

sk/

//true copy//

Vyshak International Hotel (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vyshak International Hotel (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.C.Cheriyan Vs C.Ramachandran

M/S.P.v.S.Hospital (P) Ltd., Calicut Vs the Asst. Commr. of Income Tax, Calicut

K.Sodaran Vs State of Kerala

P.K.M.Kutty Haji Vs B.M.Jamal and Another

State of Kerala Vs Skaria Johny

Narendra Dev R. Vs the Kannur University and Others