Disposed

M.S.a.Meeran v. Sales Tax Officer, Kollam

Kerala HC12 Jan 2010WP(C)/899/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought stay of coercive tax steps and condonation of delay pending appellate review. Court directed second respondent to pass appropriate orders within six weeks and keep coercive steps in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

directed second respondent to pass appropriate orders on condonation of delay and stay petitions within six weeks and keep coercive steps in abeyance

M.S.a.Meeran Vs Sales Tax Officer, Kollam — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 899 OF 2010

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

¶9

M.S.A.MEERAN, HIDES & SKINS DEALER,

¶10

ALUMPEEDIKA, OCHIRA, KAYAMKULAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

¶14

SALES TAX OFFICER, (RESERVE), COMMERCIAL TAXES SPECIAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM.

¶15

KERALA SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST.SECRETARY.

¶16

TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KARTHIKAPALLY.

¶17

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶20

W.P.(C) No. 899 OF 2010

¶21

......................................................................... Dated this the 12^th January, 2010

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The petitioner is aggrieved of Exts. P1 to Ext.P4 assessment orders passed by the first respondent. Though appeals were filed challenging the same, they were rejected by Exts. P5 and P6 orders, under which circumstance, the petitioner preferred Exts.P7 to P10 appeals before the second respondent along with Exts.P11 and P12 petitions for condonation of delay and also Exts.P13 to P16 petitions for stay. It is the case of the petitioner that, without any regard to the pendency of the said proceedings, coercive steps are being taken against him, which are sought to be intercepted by filing the present Writ Petition.

¶24

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶25

Considering the facts and circumstances, the second

¶26

respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P11 and P12 petitions for condonation of delay in filing the

¶27

¶28

W.P.(C) No. 899 OF 2010

¶29

concerned appeals and also on Exts.P13 to P16 petitions for stay, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that till appropriate orders are passed on the above petitions, all coercive steps shall be kept in abeyance.

¶30

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶31

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶32

M.S.a.Meeran v. Sales Tax Officer, Kollam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S.a.Meeran v. Sales Tax Officer, Kollam

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

N.K.Sunil Kumar Vs Dena Bank

Mohammed Sherief Vs the Joint R.T.O

M/S.Kottkunnel Trader Vs the Assistant Commissioner,Spl.Circle II

E.Usha Vs the Secretary to Govt.& Others

Shaija Nazar Vs the Thrissur District Co-Operative Bank

Aslam Agencies Vs the Commercial Tax Officer