Disposed

Sanooj Salam v. Thecommercial Tax Officer

Kerala HC9 Feb 2012WP(C)/2260/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the VAT Appellate Tribunal to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's stay petition within four weeks. Until then, further revenue recovery proceedings by the third respondent were stayed. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction.

What did the court decide?

The third respondent to keep revenue recovery proceedings in abeyance; the second respondent to dispose of the stay petition within four weeks.

Sanooj Salam Vs Thecommercial Tax Officer — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/20TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

WPC.No. 2260 of 2012 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SANOOJ SALAM,

¶8

M/S. INDIAN TIMBER, KATTAMPALLY, KANNUR-670 015.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THECOMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, II CIRCLE, KANNUR-670 012.

¶12

2. VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

3. THE INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KANNUR-670 002.

¶14

R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Kss

¶18

WPC.NO.2260/2012 F

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.P1 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD.28.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXT.P2 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER NO.945/10 DTD.27.9.11 ISSUED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY.

¶23

EXT.P3 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.

¶24

EXT.P4 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.

¶25

EXT.P5 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE NO.B4-4700/10, DTD.15.12.10 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 2260 OF 2012

¶31

===================

¶32

Dated this the 9^th day of February, 2012

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

Ext.P1 order of assessment was confirmed in Ext.P2 order of the First Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal and Ext.P4 stay petition which are pending consideration of the 2^nd respondent. Meanwhile, revenue recovery proceedings evidenced by Ext.P5 were initiated. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed.

¶35

Thus, as at present, Ext.P3 appeal and Ext.P4 stay

¶36

petition are pending consideration of the 2^nd respondent. Taking note of this, I direct the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 stay petition and pass orders thereon at any rate within four weeks from today. It is directed that in the meanwhile further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 will be kept in abeyance.

¶37

Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 2^nd respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶40

Sanooj Salam v. Thecommercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanooj Salam v. Thecommercial Tax Officer

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

Kesavan Vs the Ponnani Municipality

Binu.P.N. Vs State of Kerala

Vinod Thomas Vs the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Trib

Janasakthi Educational Cultural and Charitable Trust Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

P.K.Shanavaz Vs the Assistant Secretary

M/S.Wipro Limited (Consumer Care & Lighting) Vs Commercial Tax Inspector