Dismissed

M/S. International Merchandise Trade v. Intelligence Officer (Ib)

Kerala HC25 Sept 2012RP/864/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition was filed by companies aggrieved by a judgment in W.P.(C) No. 10938/2012, claiming the factual position regarding their functioning status was not properly considered. The High Court held that the grounds amounted to a desire for a re-hearing rather than a substantial error warranting review.

What did the court decide?

The review petitions were dismissed without any interference.

M/S. International Merchandise Trade Vs Intelligence Officer (Ib) — Kerala HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/3RD ASWINA 1934

¶5

RP.No. 864 of 2012 IN WP(C) NO. 10938/2012

¶6

--------------------------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 10938/2012 DATED 22.08.2012

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS:

¶8

1. M/S. INTERNATIONAL MERCHANDISE TRADE

¶9

& EXPORTS PVT.LTD, G-211, MAIN AVENUE PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHI-36 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI. M.A.K.AZAD,HIG-19, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36.

¶10

2. M.A.K.AZAD, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.INTERNATIONAL MERCHANDISE TRADE & EXPORTS PVT.LTD G-211, MAIN AVENUE , PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36.

¶11

3. SMT.FARIDAH HAJI VAHEED, DIRECTOR

¶12

M/S INTERNATIONAL MERCHANDISE TRADE & EXPORTS PVT.LTD G-211, MAIN AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.RAJU JOSEPH (SR.) SRI.C.N.MIDHUN

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶15

1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB) OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM-686001.

¶16

2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, IIND CIRCLE, THRIPPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM- 682301.

¶17

3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR) KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-11.

¶18

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MANOJ P. KUNJACHEN

¶19

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-09-2012 ALONG WITH R.P. NO. 869/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

DCS

¶21

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

¶22

R.P. NO. 864 of 2012 IN W.P.(C). NO. 10938/2012

¶23

¶24

R.P. NO. 869 of 2012 IN W.P.(C). NO. 10403/2012

¶25

Dated this the 25^th day of September, 2012

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The review petitioners/Companies in these cases have

¶28

approached this Court again, with the same grievance as projected in the writ petitions, mainly for the reason that this Court happened to accept the version of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12299/2012, where the concerned establishment was a 'proprietorship concern'.

¶29

The case of the review petitioners is that, the factual position with regard to the plight of the Companies, that they were not functioning as on the date of issuance of the notice (so as to have accepted and responded to) has not been properly considered by this Court and hence the matter requires to be reviewed. It is also stated that, by virtue of Sec. 26C of the KGST Act, the scope to proceed against the Director of a company is very limited and can

¶30

R.P. NO. 864 of 2012 IN W.P.(C). NO. 10938/2012 & R.P. NO. 869 of 2012 IN W.P.(C). NO. 10403/2012

¶31

¶32

only be subject to the stipulation thereunder. The learned Senior Counsel submits that, the judgment passed by this Court requires to be reviewed in the above circumstances.

¶33

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶34

After going through the grounds raised in the review petition and also the judgment passed by this Court, it appears that, the review petitioners actually want to have a 're-hearing'. In fact, the reasons for arriving at the

¶35

inference have been clearly stated in the judgment and all the aspects pointed out and agreed from the part of the writ petitioners were considered and appreciated. According to this Court, the grounds given do not constitute proper grounds to call for invoking the power of review. The scope of review is very much limited and the same cannot be a substitute for an appeal, as made clear by the Supreme Court, on many an occasion, including in Meera Bhanja vs.

¶36

Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [AIR 1995 SC 455] . There

¶37

is no error apparent on the face of the records. The remedy

¶38

R.P. NO. 864 of 2012 IN W.P.(C). NO. 10938/2012 & R.P. NO. 869 of 2012 IN W.P.(C). NO. 10403/2012

¶39

¶40

of the review petitioners, if aggrieved, is something else. In the said circumstance, no interference is called for. The review petitions are dismissed.

¶41

SD/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶42

DCS

M/S. International Merchandise Trade v. Intelligence Officer (Ib)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. International Merchandise Trade v. Intelligence Officer (Ib)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Simi Jose Vs the State of Kerala

Bindhu George Vs Union of India

Naseer C. Vs State of Kerala

P.C.Khader Haji Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

R.Nalinakshan Pillai Vs the State of Kerala

Biju Lazer Vs Director General Crpf