Disposed

Manjilas Agro Food Pvt.Ltd v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Jan 2007WP(C)/1858/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Petition challenged a Section 17(3) notice under the KGST Act. The Court held that a notice cannot be quashed at the initial stage and directed the Intelligence Officer to consider a pending application (Exhibit P4) while deferring the final order on the notice for one month.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Intelligence Officer to consider Exhibit P4 and dispose of it within two weeks; final order on the Section 17(3) notice deferred for one month.

Manjilas Agro Food Pvt.Ltd Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2007 / 28TH PAUSHA 1928

¶5

WP(C).No. 1858 of 2007(U)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

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

¶9

M/S.MANJILAS AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD., SASTHRI ROAD, NELLIKUNNU, KOTTEKKADU, TRICHUR DT., REPRESENTED BY IT'S DIRECTOR VINOD MANJILA.

¶10

BY ADV. SMT.K.LATHA

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD IV, PALAKKAD.

¶15

3. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, FIRST CIRCLE, THRISSUR.

¶16

BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.V.ASOKAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

P.R.RAMAN, J.

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.(C) NO. 1858 OF 2007 ```````````````````````````

¶21

Dated this the 18^th day of January, 2007

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Petitioner is an assessee under the KGST Act. He is seeking to challenge 17(3) notice issued by the Assessing Officer produced as Exhibit P1. Being only a notice issued, petitioner can raise all his contentions in the reply if any to be filed against the said proposal. As such, Exhibit P1 cannot be quashed at the notice stage. According to the petitioner one of the reasons contained in the proposal Exhibit P1 is that the petitioner's sales tax exemption was denied in the assessment year 1999-2000. But according to the petitioner the same has been set aside by Exhibits P2 and P3 order of the appellate Tribunal with liberty of compounding also and no revised orders has been passed. So the reason stated in the proposed notice is wrong. Petitioner has preferred Exhibit P4 before the Intelligence Officer.

¶24

The limited prayer made by the petitioner in such circumstances is that Exhibit P4 be considered and disposed of and till such time 17(3) proceedings as per Exhibit P1 be kept in abeyance.

¶25

WPC 1858/2007

¶26

: 2 :

¶27

Heard the learned Government pleader.

¶28

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be a direction to the Intelligence Officer to consider Exhibit P4 and dispose of the same in accordance with law within two weeks. Final orders pursuant to Exhibit P1 will stand deferred for a period of one month so as to enable the direction to be completed. It is open to the assessee to file his objections if any to Exhibit P1. The assessing officer shall proceed to consider the objection and dispose of the same in accordance with law after expiry of the period of one month.

¶29

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶30

Issue photocopy.

¶31

P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE

¶32

Manjilas Agro Food Pvt.Ltd v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjilas Agro Food Pvt.Ltd v. State of Kerala

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

A. Ajay Vs Secretary, R.T.A.

Abdul Asees Vs Secretary Rta.

Jineesh Kumar Vs Secretary, Rta

K.Rajani Vs the Kerala Financial Corporation

Susan Johny Vs K.S.R.T.C

Retnamma Vs Intelligence Officer & Another