Disposed

M/S.Fi-Desighn & Development Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Oct 2012WP(C)/22750/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the designated authority to pass orders on a clarification application filed under the KVAT Act within four weeks. The interlocutory order also continued a previous interim directive preventing the respondent from depositing tax deducted from the petitioner's bills.

What did the court decide?

Directed the designated authority to pass orders on the clarification application (Ext.P6) within 4 weeks; interim order against depositing tax continued.

M/S.Fi-Desighn & Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/17TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 22750 of 2012 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

FI-DESIGHN & DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, NO 15, 1ST FLOOR, FAVOURITE PLAZA, JAI BHARAT NAGAR, BANASWADI MAIN ROAD,BANGALORE- 560 033 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY YOHESH SHRINIVASAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, FI- DESIGHN & DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JACOB

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA,PIN- 695 001

¶11

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, COMMERCIAL TAXES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM, KERALA- 695 001

¶12

3. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, TRIVANDRUM, KERALA,PIN- 695 033

¶13

4. THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, IIMK CAMPUS P.O., KOZHIKODE, KERALA- 673 570

¶14

5. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY & HIGHER EDUCATION, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE AND DEVELOPMENT

¶15

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SHASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI- 110 001

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sts

¶19

WP(C)NO.22750/2012

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶22

EXT. P1	TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE UNDER KARNATAKA VAT ACT
EXT. P2	TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 02-09-2011
EXT. P3	TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING PURCHASE OF GOODS IN KARNATAKA AND TRANSPORTATION TO CALICUT
EXT. P4	TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICES RAISED BY THE PETITIONER ON THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXT. P5	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15-06-2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXT. P6	TRUE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION APPLICATION
EXT. P7	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06-09-2012
EXT. P8	TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 26-09-2012

¶23

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO.JUDGE

sts

W.P.(C) NO.22750 OF 2012

¶28

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶29

--------------------------------------------------

¶30

--------------------------------------------------

¶31

Dated this the 9^th day of October, 2012

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

Petitioner states that he is a dealer registered under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act. The 4^th respondent has awarded them a contract. The case of the petitioner is that in spite of the fact that the transaction between them and the 4^th respondent, is covered by the CST Act, the 4^th respondent deducted tax due under the Kerala Value added Tax Act from their bills. Thereupon the petitioner filed Ext.P6 clarification under Section 94 of the KVAT Act before the 3^rd respondent. While orders are awaited, petitioner apprehended that the 4^th respondent would deposit the tax deducted to the Commercial Taxes Department. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed.

¶34

Learned Government Pleader, who has obtained instructions in the matter, submits that the designated authority has heard the petitioner on Ext.P6 clarification on 25.7.2012. However, even according to the Government Pleader orders on Ext.P6 are still not passed.

¶35

WPC.No. 22750/2012

¶36

:2 :

¶37

Taking note of the pendency of Ext.P6, I direct the designated authority to pass orders on Ext.P6. This shall be done at any rate within 4 weeks of receipt of a copy of the judgment. In the meanwhile, the interim order passed by this court on 1.10.2012 directing the 4^th respondent not to deposit the tax deducted from the petitioner will continue. Once orders are passed on Ext.P6, the parties will abide by such order.

¶38

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶39

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶40

vi/

¶41

WPC.No. 22750/2012

¶42

:3 :

M/S.Fi-Desighn & Development Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Fi-Desighn & Development Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala

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

T.K.Siju Vs C.Vijayamohan

Radhika Jayan Vs the Intelligence Office (Ib)

Andrews Kattikkana Vs the Deputy Tahsildar and Others

Tam Media Research Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commercial Tax Inspector

Jithin V.S. Vs the District Collector

Sajid P.A Vs the Authorized Officer,the Federal Bank Ltd.