Disposed

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

Kerala HC6 Jan 2010WP(C)/380/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal to consider petitions for condonation of delay and stay, to hear the petitioner expeditiously, and to keep further tax proceedings in abeyance pending its orders.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 2 to consider petitions for condonation of delay and stay expeditiously and keep other proceedings in abeyance.

M/S.Daehsan Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs the… — 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. 380 of 2010(V) -------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

M/S. DAESHAN TRADING (INDIA) PVT.LTD., 41/3957-A, PROVIDENCE JUNCTION, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOCHI-18, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH CO-ORDINATOR SMT.JULLE JACOB.

¶9

BY ADVS.MR.ANIL D. NAIR, SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), SPECIAL CIRCLE II, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

2. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (TAXES), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K.GOVINDAN

¶17

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

¶18

Kss

¶19

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

¶20

W.P(C) No.380 of 2010-V

¶21

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

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order passed by the assessing authority, the petitioner has preferred statutory appeal before the

¶24

first appellate authority, who passed Ext.P2 order declining interference. In such circumstances, the petitioner preferred second appeal before the second respondent as borne by Ext.P3, along with Ext.P4 petition for stay and also accompanied by Ext.P5 petition to condone the delay in filing the second appeal.

¶25

The grievance of the petitioner is that it is without any regard to the pendency of the said proceedings, that coercive steps are being pursued against the petitioner as borne by Ext.P1, which in turn is under challenge in this Writ Petition,

¶26

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶27

Considering the facts and circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 petition to condone the delay in filing the second appeal, as well as in Ext.P4 petition for stay, in accordance with law, giving an

¶28

W.P(C) No.380 of 2010-V

¶29

¶30

opportunity to hear the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that till such orders are passed on Exts.P4 and P5, all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 shall be kept in abeyance.

¶31

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶34

//True Copy//

¶35

P.A to Judge

¶36

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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)

Asharaf Vs Deputy Tahsildar and Others

V. Surendran Vs Kerala State Backward Classes Developmet