Partly allowed

M/S.G.R.Engineering Pvt.Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (Wc)

Kerala HC14 Mar 2012WA/484/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The two-judge bench dismissed this writ appeal filed against the Single Judge's order declining interference with a tax assessment. The court held that the statutory appeal remedy was appropriate as the Appellate Authority must examine grounds and documents regarding the exemption claim and works contract valuation.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was disposed of allowing one week's time to the appellant to file an appeal. The extracts in the Single Judge's judgment were deleted.

M/S.G.R.Engineering Pvt.Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner… — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/24TH PHALGUNA 1933

¶5

WA.No. 484 of 2012 () IN WPC/4816/2012

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN .NO./ IN WPC.4816/2012 DATED

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANTS:

¶8

M/S.G.R.ENGINEERING PVT.LTD. LEKHA APARTMENTS, NO.4B, TEMPLE ROAD THRIPUNITHURA, COCHIN-682301, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT MANAGER A.SURENDRANATH.

¶9

BY ADVS.DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY (SR.) SRI.BEJOY CHERIYAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (WC)

¶12

COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682018.

¶13

STATE OF KERALA

¶14

REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (TAXES) STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶15

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BOBBY JOHN.

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.A. 484 OF 2012

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

Annexure-1 True copy from 20H issued by the sub-contractor, which is duly counter signed by the 1^st respondent.

¶20

Annexure-II Copy of E1 Form No.0053028 issued by M/s Raychem RPG Ltd; Mumbai.

¶21

Annexure-III Copy of E1 Form No.0014452 issued by M/s Virgo Engineers Ltd; Pune.

¶22

Annexure-IV Copy of E1 Form No.25240 issued by M/s President Engineering Works, Silvasa.

¶23

Annexure-V Copy of E1 Form No.537035 issued by M/s IGP Engineers (P) Lt. Chennai.

¶24

Annexure-VI Statement along with copies of Lorry receipts in support of the transit sales.

¶25

Annexure-VII Copy of Judgment dated 2.11.11 in Writ Appeal No.1370/2011 cited in the certified copy of judgment.

¶26

[ True copy ]

¶27

ul/-

¶28

C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &

¶29

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶30

W.A. No. 484 OF 2012

¶31

Dated this the 14^th day of March, 2012

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

Ramachandran Nair, J

¶34

This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with assessment for the reason that appellant has an alternate remedy by way of statutory appeal. We have heard the Senior Counsel Sri.Mohamed Kutty appearing for the appellant and also Senior Government Pleader for respondents. The learned Single Judge has strongly relied on that part of the reply given by the appellant wherein need for personal hearing was left to the Assessing Officer. We do not think there is any significance as to whether any option of hearing was in fact given or not which itself was found to be controversy by the learned Single Judge, because the assessment involves substantial amount and

¶35

W.A. No.484 OF 2012

¶36

:2 :

¶37

the controversy with regard to the claim of exemption made by the appellant is the works contract, the substantial portion of turn over representing value of materials. We, therefore, feel that the appellate remedy is the right remedy and the only remedy available to the appellant because the Appellate Authority has to examine the correctness of the assessment with reference to the grounds raised and the documents and the contentions raised by the appellant in accordance with law. We accordingly dispose of the Writ Appeal granting one week's time to the appellant to file appeal from the date of receipt of this judgment. The “extracts” in the judgment of the learned Single Judge are deleted as the same has no significance.

¶38

Sd/- C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.

¶39

ul/-

¶40

Sd/- BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. [True copy]

¶41

P.S. to Judge.

M/S.G.R.Engineering Pvt.Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (Wc)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.G.R.Engineering Pvt.Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (Wc)

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Babu Oommen

State of Kerala Vs M/. I.P.Ruby Latex Pvt. ;Td

State of Kerala Vs M/S.Metro Trading Syndicate

R.Sudarsanan Vs Principal Secretary to Government

M/S. Kallada Hotels and Resorts Vs State of Kerala

The Joint Registrar of Co-Op. Societies (General), Thrissur Vs the Thrissur Taluk Co-Op. College Educational Society Ltd.