Disposed

M/S.M.E.Polymers (P) Ltd. v. the Commercial Tax Officer and Two Other

Kerala HC5 Jan 2010WP(C)/32/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged coercive recovery proceedings initiated by respondents while appeal petitions were pending. Court directed respondent to condone delay in appeals and stay coercive steps for one month.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to condone delay in appeals within one month and keep coercive proceedings in abeyance pending said orders.

M/S.M.E.Polymers (P) Ltd. Vs the Commercial Tax Officer… — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 32 of 2010(D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

M/S M.E. POLYMERS (P) LTD., IST FLOOR , MADEENA, MASJID SHOPPING COMPLEX, PULLEPPADY, KOCHI-35. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MOHAMED IBRAHIM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR

SRI.KURYAN THOMAS

RESPONDENT(S):

THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,

¶14

2ND CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-30.

¶17

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶20

¶21

WP(C) No. 32 of 2010

¶22

Dated, this the 5^th day of January, 2010

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Challenging Exts.P1 and P2 orders passed by the first respondent under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act and CST Act respectively, for the assessment year in question, the petitioner has already approached the 2^nd respondent/Appellate Authority by filing Exts.P3 and P4 appeals, along with Exts.P5 and P6 petitions for stay and also accompanied by Exts.P7 and P8 petitions seeking to condone the delay in filing the appeals. The grievance of the petitioner is that, it is without any regard to the pendency of said proceedings, that the respondents are proceeding with further coercive steps as revealed from Exts.P9 and P10 notices caused to be issued under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, which hence is sought to be challenged in this Writ Petition.

¶25

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶26

Considering the facts and circumstances, the 2^nd

¶27

respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P7 and P8 petitions to condone the delay in filing the appeal as well as on Exts.P5 and P6 petitions for stay, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy

¶28

WP(C) No.32/2010

¶29

¶30

of this judgment. Till such orders are passed on the proceedings as stated above, all further coercive proceedings pursuant to Exts.P9 and P10 shall be kept in abeyance.

¶31

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶32

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶33

dnc

M/S.M.E.Polymers (P) Ltd. v. the Commercial Tax Officer and Two Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.M.E.Polymers (P) Ltd. v. the Commercial Tax Officer and Two Other

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.Salim Vs District Collector,Thiruvananthapuram

Kochuthressia Vs Vijayan

Lord Krishna Bank Ltd., Vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax.

P.K.Velayudhan Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises

Jyothy Laboratories Limited, Thrissur Vs Assistant Commissioner(Assessment)

Rahul George Vs K.S.E.B