Partly allowed

M/S.M.v.R.Industries Ltd. v. the Assistant Commissioner (Aassmt),Koll

Kerala HC11 Oct 2012WP(C)/9238/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged recovery proceedings including a notice of sale under KGST Act. Assessment orders for relevant years were set aside and awaited fresh orders. Court quashed recovery notice and sale notice but allowed continuation of recovery for other years or once fresh orders are passed.

What did the court decide?

Exhibits P8 (recovery proceedings) and P9 (notice of sale) were set aside/quashed. Petition disposed of.

M/S.M.v.R.Industries Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner (Aassmt),Koll — Kerala HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/19TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 9238 of 2009 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M/S.M.V.R. INDUSTRIES LIMITED, FORMER M.V.R. EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.1, PILLAYARKOIL STREET, MANAPAKKAM, CHENNAI, REPRESENTED BY IT'S POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER-G.G.RAJAN.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT),

¶11

SPECIAL CIRCLE II, KOLLAM.

¶12

2. THE KERALA STATE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

¶13

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

3. THE TAHASILDAR (R.R), KOLLAM.

¶15

BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SHOBHA ANNAMMA EAPEN.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

WP(C).No. 9238 of 2009 (Y)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶21

EXT.P1	COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS DATED 04/02/2004.
EXT.P2	COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.12010777/92-93 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 30/11/2002.
EXT.P3	COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-1993 BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 13/02/2009.
EXT.P4	COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.1201-0777/92-93 (REMANDED CASE) ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 30/05/2006.
EXT.P5	COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-1993 BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 25/09/2008.
EXT.P6	COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-1993 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 09/02/2009.
EXT.P7	COPY OF THE ORDER IN T.A. NOS.81, 82, 697 & 698 OF 2003 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 30/01/2007.
EXT.P8	COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 03/02/2009.
EXT.P9	COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DATED 05/03/2009.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 9238 OF 2009

¶27

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

¶28

Dated this the 11^th day of October, 2012

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

Petitioner approached this Court challenging the revenue recovery proceedings including the notices of sale published by the Tahsildar (RR) for realising the dues under the KGST Act. According to the petitioner, based on the assessment orders passed pertaining to the years 1992-93 and 1995-96, recovery proceedings were initiated, which culminated in Exts.P8 and P9, revenue recovery notice and sale notice referred to above. The present factual position is that the assessment orders in question were set aside by the appellate authorities and the matters were remanded to the assessing officers for passing fresh assessing orders. The position as of now is that fresh orders have not been passed. On that basis, petitioner now contends that the recovery action has to be quashed.

¶31

However, learned Government Pleader submits that the demand which led to Exts.P8 and P9 includes assessment orders other than 1992-93 and 1995-96 also and therefore according to her, the recovery action will have to continue.

¶32

:2 :

¶33

WPC.No.9238/09

¶34

Admittedly, the recovery proceedings which are impugned in this writ petition includes demands for 1992-93 and 1995-96 also. Since assessment orders have now been set aside and the matters are pending before the assessing officers for passing fresh orders, recovery proceedings as initiated cannot continue.

¶35

For that reason, Ext.P8 recovery proceedings and

¶36

Ext.P9 notice of sale will have to be set aside and I do so. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Exts.P8 and P9 and clarifying that if recovery proceedings included demands for years other than 1992-93 and 1995-96, it will be open to the respondents to continue the recovery for realising the amount, if any, due for those years. However, in so far as the years 1992-93 and 1995-96 are concerned also, the respondents will be free to continue the recovery proceedings, once fresh assessment orders are passed.

¶37

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶38

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶39

M/S.M.v.R.Industries Ltd. v. the Assistant Commissioner (Aassmt),Koll

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.M.v.R.Industries Ltd. v. the Assistant Commissioner (Aassmt),Koll

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

Rohit.S.Kumar Vs K. Madhavan

Y.Jubaira Beevi Vs Income Tax Officer

Abdul Sathar Ismail Sait Vs Asst.Commr. of Income Tax Circle-I

Ammini Ernest Vs M/S. Triton Systems Pvt. Ltd.

V.G.Sreekumar Vs Recovery Officer

K.Faizel Vs State Bank of Travancore