Remanded

M/S.Anjali Hotels Pvt.Ltd. v. the Commercial Tax Officer(Work Contract

Kerala HC12 Jan 2007WP(C)/1390/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted a conditional stay on recovery of disputed luxury tax, directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,00,000 within three weeks. The balance recovery is stayed pending appeal disposal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to pay Rs. 2,00,000 within three weeks for stay of recovery of balance tax amount pending disposal of appeal.

M/S.Anjali Hotels Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Commercial Tax… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2007 / 22ND PAUSHA 1928

¶5

WP(C).No. 1390 of 2007(M)

¶6

-------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

------------

¶9

ANJALI HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,CASINO HOTEL, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-3, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.MICHAEL DOMINIC.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE

¶11

SRI.MITHUN MARKOS

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

-------------

¶14

1.THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WORKS CONTRACT), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM.

¶15

2.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), KOLLAM.

¶16

3.THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KOTTAYAM.

¶17

BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.SOJAN JAMES

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

P.R.RAMAN, J.

¶20

```````````````````````````

¶21

W.P.(C) NO. 1390 OF 2007 ```````````````````````````

¶22

Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2007

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The challenge made in this writ petition is against the interim order passed by the appellate authority in luxury tax matter. The assessment relates to 1996-97, 1998-99 and 19992000. The contention of the petitioner is that the order was passed in a mechanical way. His prime contention is that telephonic charges take chunk of the claim now made which in no way can be assessed for the purpose of luxury tax. If this amount is excluded for all these years in question, the balance will be around Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) and now if 50% of the amount demanded is directed to be paid, practically petitioner will have to pay Rs.2,71,000/- which is arbitrary and excessive.

¶25

Heard the learned Government pleader.

¶26

In the facts and circumstances, there will be a direction

¶27

that in case the petitioner pays an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- within three weeks towards the disputed tax pending disposal of the appeal, there will be stay for recovery of the balance amount till disposal of the appeal and Exhibit P6 stands modified as above.

¶28

WPC 1390/2007

¶29

: 2 :

¶30

However, on default the petitioner will lose the benefit of this order.

¶31

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶32

P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE

¶33

M/S.Anjali Hotels Pvt.Ltd. v. the Commercial Tax Officer(Work Contract

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Anjali Hotels Pvt.Ltd. v. the Commercial Tax Officer(Work Contract

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paravanna Ice Plant Vs the K.S.E.B and Another

Prince Joseph Vs Joint Rto, Mattancherry.

Fathima Mohammed Vs Rta., Thrissur

Mohammed Aslam Vs Rta, Malappuram.

Csi Christ Church, Alleppey Vs State of Kerala

Muthumanikam Vs the Addl. District Magistrate & Others