Partly allowed

A.T.M.Vaidyraj Oushadhasala v. the Asst.Commissioner(Appeals)& Another

Kerala HC20 May 2011WP(C)/13571/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of this writ petition challenging coercive proceedings despite pending appeals. It directed the first respondent to consider the stay application on merits within one month and keep further proceedings in abeyance, without adjudicating the merits of the case itself.

What did the court decide?

Directed to consider stay application within one month; all further proceedings kept in abeyance.

A.T.M.Vaidyraj Oushadhasala Vs the… — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2011 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 13571 of 2011(V)

PETITIONER(S):

A.T.M.VAIDYRAJ OUSADHASALA,

¶10

REPD. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, KOCHUMON, ANANDAPURAM POST, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, WEST FORT, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680 004.

¶15

INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680 121.

¶16

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.P.PRADEEP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

¶19

W.P.(C).13571/2011

¶20

Dated this the 20^th day of May, 2011

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the coercive proceedings as borne by Ext.P3 demand notice issued by the second respondent without any regard to the pendency of Ext.P1 appeal and Ext.P2 petition for stay which have been preferred by the petitioner challenging the impugned assessment order and are pending consideration before the first respondent.

¶23

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶24

Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court does not intend to go into the merits of the case, but for directing the concerned authority to have the Interlocutory Application considered on merits.

¶25

Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to consider Ext.P2 application for stay and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any

¶26

W.P.(C).13571/11

¶27

¶28

rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 shall be kept in abeyance till such time.

¶29

Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with the copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps.

¶30

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶31

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge

¶32

mrcs

A.T.M.Vaidyraj Oushadhasala v. the Asst.Commissioner(Appeals)& Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.T.M.Vaidyraj Oushadhasala v. the Asst.Commissioner(Appeals)& Another

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

Smitha Karthikapally Vs the District Collector,Ernakulam

Global Industries Vs Commissioner of Customs,Kochi & Another

Azhar Educational Trust Vs the R.D.O.

K.S.Mohammed Sameer Vs Commercial Tax Officer

M/S.Metro Infrasys Pvt.Ltd Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

M/S,.Power Link Services Vs the Commercial Tax Officer