Partly allowed

State of Kerala v. M/S.P.K.D Sons

Kerala HC27 Oct 2010ST.Rev./157/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a sales tax revision regarding interest liability by relying on a Full Bench judgment. It quashed the Tribunal order and directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the liability based on that precedent, dispensing with further notice to the assessee.

What did the court decide?

Revision allowed; Tribunal order set aside to the extent it was against the Full Bench judgment; Assessment Officer directed to issue notice and recompute interest liability based on the Full Bench ju

State of Kerala Vs M/S.P.K.D Sons — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932

¶4

ST.Rev..No. 157 of 2010()

¶5

------------------------TA.65/2009 of S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ADDL.BENCH,KZD.

¶6

REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/REVENUE

¶7

¶8

STATE OF KRALA, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONR (LAW) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM,

¶9

BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ

¶10

RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE

¶11

¶12

M/S.P.K. & SONS, KARAPARAMBA, CALICUT- 673010.

¶13

THIS SALES TAX REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶15

.................................................................... S.T. Rev. No.157 of 2010

¶16

.................................................................... Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010.

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶19

Even though notice is served in the delay condonation petition to the respondent, there is no response. In fact, we have through separate order condoned the delay and entertained the revision case.

¶20

When the matter came up for admission, Government Pleader pointed out that the issue raised is respondent's liability for interest under Section 23(3A) of the KGST Act which is squarely covered by Full Bench decision in STATE OF KERALA VS. WESTERN INDIA COSMETICS AND HEALTH PRODUCTS LTD. reported in 2010(1) KLT 786. Though in the normal course we should serve notice on the respondent, we do not think any purpose is served by serving notice because whatever be the objection respondent may raise, we are bound by the Full Bench judgment. Therefore, we feel it would be better to dispose of the case without issuing notice to the respondent which would only lead to additional expenditure for the respondent.

¶21

¶22

Accordingly we allow the revision by setting aside the order of the Tribunal to the extent it is against the judgment of the Full Bench and direct the Assessing Officer to issue notice to the assessee with a copy of this judgment and recompute interest liability based on Full Bench

¶23

judgment referred above after giving opportunity to the assessee.

¶24

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge

¶25

K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge

¶26

pms

State of Kerala v. M/S.P.K.D Sons

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. M/S.P.K.D Sons

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.R.Noorjahan Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Meenachil Rubber Wood Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

M/S.P.P.Ashique, Hamson Associates Vs the State of Kerala

Ansari Charitable Trust,Perumpilavu Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax,Trichur

Lekha.S Vs the Director,Model & Super Speciality Ho

State of Kerala Vs M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation