Disposed

Thressia Antony v. the Intelligence Officer

Kerala HC7 Feb 2012WP(C)/2342/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought interim relief to obtain copies of documents requested by the petitioner from the Commercial Tax Officer to file a reply to a tax notice issued under Section 676 of the KVAT Act. The court directed the 2nd respondent to issue the documents within two weeks and extended the time to file the reply by four weeks, disposing of the petition without deciding merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed 2nd respondent to provide requested documents within two weeks; time for reply to Ext.P1 enlarged by four weeks.

Thressia Antony Vs the Intelligence… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/18TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

WPC.No. 2342 of 2012 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

THRESSIA ANTONY, AGED 72 YEARS, MACHINGAL HOUSE, NELLAYI ,THRICHUR DIST

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (INVESTIGATION BRANCH)DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES THRISSUR-01

¶11

2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, IST CIRCLE, COLLECTORATE BUILDING

¶12

AYYANTHOLE

¶13

THRISSUR -01

¶14

BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SOBHA ANNAMMA EAPPEN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WPC NO.2342/12

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶19

EXT.P1:- IBD 18/2011	TRUE COPY OF THE -12 DTD 3/1/2012	NOTICE UNDER SECTION 676 OF THE KVAT ACT NO
EXT.P2:- PETITIONER.	TRUE COPY OF THE	PETITION DTD 16/1/2012 FILED BY THE
EXT.P3:- RESPONDENT.	TRUE COPY OF THE	REQUEST DTD 21/1/2012 GIVEN TO THE 2ND
EXT.P4:- RESPONDENT.	TRUE COPY OF THE	REQUEST DTD 21/1/2012 GIVEN TO THE ND
EXT.P5:- TO THE 2ND	TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT,	ORDER OF THE REQUEST DTD 21/1/2012 GIVEN
EXT.P6:-	TRUE COPY OF THE	NOTICE NO IBD 18/2011-2011-2012 DTD 17/1/12

//True Copy//

PA to Judge

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 2342 OF 2012

¶24

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

¶25

Dated this the 7^th day of February, 2012

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

Petitioner was a registered dealer on the rolls of the 2^nd respondent. Ext.P1 is a notice issued by the 1^st respondent under Section 67 of the KVAT Act calling for the objections to the proposal contained therein. On receipt of the said notice, petitioner made Ext.P2 and sought for a month's time to reply to the notice. This was followed by Exts.P3 to P5 communications from the petitioner where the petitioner sought copies of certain documents from the 2^nd respondent. Reply was not forthcoming from the 2^nd respondent and while so, the 1^st respondent issued Ext.P6 requiring the petitioner to file reply to Ext.P1 before 30/1/12 and that no further adjournment will be granted. It was at that that stage the writ petition was filed complaining of the above.

¶28

On the filing of the writ petition, learned Government Pleader obtained instructions and submitted that pursuant to Ext.P6, petitioner appeared before the 1^st respondent on 30/1/12 and that on her request, again postponed to 16/2/2012. However,

¶29

:2 :

¶30

WPC.No.2342/12

¶31

the complaint of the petitioner even as of now was that her request to the 2^nd respondent evidenced by Exts.P3 to P5 have not been responded.

¶32

From the submissions thus made by the parties, it is therefore evident that the case of the petitioner is that to effectively reply to the proposal contained in Ext.P1, what is required is copies of the documents which were sought for by Exts.P3 to P5. These documents are to be issued by the 2^nd respondent.

¶33

Considering the pendency of Exts.P3 to P5 requests made by the petitioner to the 2^nd respondent, I direct the 2^nd respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner and if the documents sought for are available with him, to issue the same. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible at any rate within two weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. It is directed that the time for reply to Ext.P1 will stand enlarged by four weeks from today so that on receipt of the copies of the documents sought for by the petitioner, she can file her reply. If the petitioner files reply as above, petitioner will be heard and on that basis orders on Ext.P1 will be passed.

¶34

WPC.No.2342/12

¶35

:3 :

¶36

Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before respondents 1 and 2 for compliance. Needless to say that this Court has not dealt with the contentions raised by the petitioner on merits.

¶37

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶38

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶39

Thressia Antony v. the Intelligence Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thressia Antony v. the Intelligence Officer

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

K.v.Gangadharan Vs M/S.Darsana Auto Finance

Shyla Mohan Vs the Debt Recovery Tribunal

Abdul Salam.P.K. Vs State of Kerala

Subair Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer

V.P.Ninish Vs Transport Commissioner

John J. Vs Union Bank of India