Disposed

N.v.Surendran v. Commercial Tax Officer

Kerala HC8 Jan 2010WP(C)/626/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges coercive revenue recovery steps taken without regard to pending tribunal proceedings. The Court directed the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal to dispose of a stay petition within six weeks and stayed further coercive actions pending the final order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to second respondent to dispose of review petition within six weeks and stay of coercive revenue recovery steps pending such order.

N.v.Surendran Vs Commercial Tax Officer — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 626 of 2010(C)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

N.V. SURENDRAN, PWD CONTRACTOR, SUDHILAYAM, KEEZHUR, CHAVASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SMT.K.HYMAVATHY

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFICER (WC & LT), KANNUR.

¶14

2. SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOZHIKODE.

¶15

3. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), THALASSERY.

¶16

BY ADV.SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER.9

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2010, ALONG WITH W.P(C)NO.628/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ami

¶19

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

¶20

W.P(C) Nos.626/2010 & 628/2010

¶21

Dated this the 8^th day of January, 2010.

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

On losing the battle in the first appeal against the assessment

¶24

order, the petitioner had approached the second respondent Tribunal by filing a second appeal, where also the fate was in no way different. Thus the petitioner has filed Ext.P3 Review petition, along with Ext.P4 petition for stay. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is without any regard to the pendency of the above proceedings, that the third respondent is proceeding with hasty steps by invoking the provisions under the Revenue Recovery

¶25

Act as borne by Ext.P5, which has necessitated the present writ petition.

¶26

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶27

Considering the nature of contentions put forth in the

¶28

writ petition and the materials brought on record, this Court finds it fit and proper to have the review petition to be heard and finalized by the second respondent at the earliest.

¶29

W.P(C) Nos.626/2010 & 628/2010 2

¶30

In the above facts and circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 Review petition filed by the petitioner in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such final orders are passed on Ext.P3, all further coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P5 shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits involved.

¶31

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶32

Sd/P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶33

//True Copy//

¶34

P.A to Judge

¶35

N.v.Surendran v. Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.v.Surendran v. Commercial Tax Officer

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

The Malappuram Service Co-Op.Bank Vs Income Tax Officer

K.a.Salim Vs the Asst.Exe.Engineer, K.S.E.B

M/S.Preethy Coconut Products Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Manikandan Vs Pareed

Muneer Cholakkal Vs the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)

Babu Baradwaj Vs Kfc