Partly allowed

Asharaf v. Deputy Tahsildar and Others

Kerala HC6 Jan 2010WP(C)/256/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged recovery steps under Revenue Recovery Act regarding KGST dues. Trial court directed payment of principal tax with liberty to challenge penalty and interest while staying coercive proceedings for six weeks due to petitioner's claim of lost accounts.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay Rs.27,513/-. Coercive proceedings stayed for six weeks. Liberty granted to challenge penalty and interest.

Asharaf Vs Deputy Tahsildar and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 256 of 2010(F) ------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

ASHRAF, SEENA JEWELLERY, THAKAZHI, ALAPPUZHA.

¶9

BY ADVS. MR.S.SANAL KUMAR, SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE DEPUTY THAHSILDAR, KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA.

¶13

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THAKAZHY, ALAPPUZHA.

¶14

3. THE SALE TAX OFFICER, HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA.

¶15

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Kss

¶18

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

¶19

W.P(C) No.256 of 2010 -F

¶20

Dated this the 6^th day of January, 2010.

¶21

The petitioner is challenging the recovery steps being pursued

¶22

by the respondents invoking the provisions under the Revenue Recovery Act, as borne by Exts.P2 and P3, in respect of the amount stated as due from the petitioner under the KGST Act.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the assessment order as well as other relevant records had already been entrusted with the Chartered Accountant by name 'Udayakumar' at Punnappra, for filing necessary proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal and that the petitioner was under the firm belief that all necessary steps would have been taken by the said Chartered Accountant and the petitioner would be intimated the position, in the due course. While so, the petitioner was served with demand notices as borne by Exts.P2 and P3 in December 2009, when the petitioner made enquiry and it was revealed that the said Chartered Account had taken his last breath in a road accident. It is also

¶24

W.P(C) No.256 of 2010 -F 2

¶25

stated that even the records could not be retrieved from the office of the deceased Chartered Accountant and steps are being made to trace out the same. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is very much prepared to remit the tax and that he is aggrieved only in respect of the penalty and interest.

¶26

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶27

Considering the particular facts and circumstances, the

¶28

petitioner is directed to pay the sum of Rs.27,513/- which consists of the principal portion towards the tax dues within one month, with liberty to challenge the imposition of the penalty as well as interest by filing necessary proceedings as contemplated under the relevant provisions of law. However, so as to enable the petitioner to pursue such remedy, all further coercive proceedings pursuant to Exts.P2 and P3 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of six weeks.

¶29

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶32

//True Copy//

¶33

¶34

P.A to Judge

Asharaf v. Deputy Tahsildar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asharaf v. Deputy Tahsildar and Others

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

P.K.Velayudhan Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises

Jyothy Laboratories Limited, Thrissur Vs Assistant Commissioner(Assessment)

Rahul George Vs K.S.E.B

Jyothy Laboratories Limited,Thrissur Vs Assistant Commissioner(Assessment)

V. Surendran Vs Kerala State Backward Classes Developmet

M/S.Daehsan Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment)