Review petition where the petitioner sought to clarify that the earlier dismissed writ judgment would not preclude the tax authority from considering a subsequent representation filed on the matter for a decision.
Clarified that the judgment will not stand in the way of authorities considering the petitioner's representation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2012/31ST JYAISHTA 1934
RP.No. 507 of 2012 (B)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.6618/2012 DATED 26.03.2012
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER IN RP:
M/S.CRAYSOL TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PVT.LTD CRAYSOL BUILDING, BLDG.NO.XVIII/49B COCHIN UNIVERSITY ROAD, NEAR BALAJI SERVICE CENTRE ERNAKULAM 682022 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.E.A.NOBY.
BY ADVS.SMT.S.K.DEVI SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN RP:
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER II CIRCLE, KALAMASSERY AT PALARIVATTOM KOCHI-682025.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANOJ KUNJACHAN
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
tss
RP. NO.507/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEUXRES
AI:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 26.3.2012 IN WPC. 6618/2012 AII:- COPY OF THE PETITION DGT. 14.5.2012 FIELD UNDER SECTION 3 (2) ©
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
tss
ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No.507 of 2012 in
W.P.(C) NO. 6618 OF 2012
===================
Dated this the 21st day of June, 2012
O R D E R
Writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated 26/03/2012 concluding that in the absence of any statutory provision, the petitioner could not have asked for the relief in the writ petition. It appears that subsequent to the judgment, petitioner filed Annexure II representation before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and thereafter has filed this review petition seeking clarification that the findings in the judgment will not stand in the way of the authority concerned in considering the representation.
R.P.No.507 of 2012 in W.P.(C) NO. 6618 OF 2012
:2 :
representation, if the same is maintainable in law.
Review petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the dismissal of a writ petition precludes the tax authority from considering a subsequent representation filed voluntarily.
Whether the court's observation in the earlier judgment acts as a statutory bar to the petitioner's underlying claim.
M/S.CRAYSOL TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PVT.LTD
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER II CIRCLE, KALAMASSERY
STATE OF KERALA
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
