Disposed

Superintendent v. P.P.Sudheer

Kerala HC5 Feb 2013RP/773/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Judge Antony Dominic disposed of three review petitions filed by tax authorities and traders. The court held that since the underlying writ petitions were based on a Division Bench judgment which was subsequently reviewed, the earlier orders regarding those writ petitions were revised to align with the updated law.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners are governed by the reviewed Judgment in Writ Appeal No.1382 of 2011 and connected cases.

Superintendent Vs P.P.Sudheer — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/16TH MAGHA 1934

¶5

RP.No. 773 of 2012 ()

¶6

{IN WP(C).34734/2007 OF THIS COURT}

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 :

¶8

SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX RANGE, OTTAPPALAM.

¶9

UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE NEW DELHI.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.TOJAN J.VATHIKULAM,SC,C.B. EXCISE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:

¶12

P.P.SUDHEER S/O. HAMZA, PADINJAREPEEDIKAYIL, THRITHALA PALAKKAD-679534.

¶13

P.P.HAMZA PADINJAREPEEDIKAYIL, THRITHALA, PALAKKAD-679534.

¶14

P.ABDUL MAJEED PALATHINKAL HOUSE, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-679303.

¶15

K.SULAIMAN S/O. BAPU, KOOLAYIL HOUSE, P.O.LAKKIDI PALAKKAD-679301.

¶16

V.KUNJIMOIDEEN VAKAYIL HOUSE, P.O.KUTTIPPURAM, PALAKKAD-679571.

¶17

C.SETHUMADHAVAN S/O. MADHAVAN, CHITTARIPPARA HOUSE, SANKARAMANGALAM PALAKKAD-679303.

¶18

PATTAMBI GRAMA PANCHAYAT PATTAMBI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679303.

¶19

RP.No. 773 of 2012 ()

¶20

:: 2 ::

¶21

THE SECRETARY PATTAMBI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PATTAMBI P.O. PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679303.

¶22

R1 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW R7 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH

¶23

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ALONG WITH RP NOS.883/2012 & 48/2013, ON 05-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

RP.No. 773 of 2012

:: ::

APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶28

ANNEXURE-ATRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14-10-2011 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL 8390/2011 AND CONNECTED CIVIL APPEALS AND SLP 27636/2011.

¶29

ANNEXURE-BTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28-9-2011 IN SLP 27245/2011 FILED BY RETAILERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA. ANNEXURE-CTRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT OF W.A.NO.1382/2011 DATED 24.2.2012. ANNEXURE-DCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO.34734/2007 DATED 21.3.2012.

¶30

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

//true copy//

P.S. To Judge

sk/-

ANTONY DOMINIC,J

R.P. Nos.773, 883 of 2012 and 48 of 2013

¶36

Dated this the 5^th day of February, 2013

¶37

ORDER

¶38

These review petitioners are filed seeking review of the judgment in W.P.(c) Nos.34734, 36714 of 2007 and 3231 of 2008 respectively. These writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment dated 21.03.2012 taking the view that the issues raised by the petitioners were covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1382 of 2011 and connected cases and clarifying that the petitioners in the writ petitions will also be entitled to the benefit of the directions in the Division Bench judgment.

¶39

It is now submitted that by order in R.P.No.466 of 2012 and connected cases, the judgment in Writ Appeal No.1382 of 2011 and connected cases were reviewed by order dated 12.09.2012. In paragraph 6 of the aforesaid order, the Division Bench has held thus:

¶40

R.P.Nos.773 773 and 883 of 2012 and 48 of 2013

¶41

: 2 :

¶42

“We therefore, dispose of the review petitions by stating that further interim orders, if any, issued by Honourable Supreme Court modifying the stay orders in the special leave petition pending against the judgment of Delhi High Court in Home Solutions Retails(India) Ltd case(supra), will be applied in the case of all respondents and the department is free to call for details of arrears and to recover the amount which is ordered by Supreme Court and enforce other conditions in regard to security also ordered by Supreme Court in the case pending before Supreme Court. There will be a direction to the respondents to comply with the Supreme Court orders, if any, issued modifying the stay orders in Home Solutions Retails (India) Ltd case (supra), on being intimated by the department, within three weeks from the date of intimation, failing which department can recover the entire arrears of tax.”

¶43

It is in the light of the aforesaid order reviewing the judgment, these review petitions are filed seeking review of the judgment and to make it consistent with the judgment of the Division Bench as reviewed.

¶44

I heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners and the counsel appearing for the writ petitioners.

¶45

R.P.Nos.773 773 and 883 of 2012 and 48 of 2013

¶46

: 3 :

¶47

Admittedly, the writ petitions were disposed of in

¶48

the light of the Division Bench judgment in Writ Appeal No.1382 of 2011 and connected cases and clarifying that the petitioners will be eligible for the benefit of the directions issued by the Division Bench. This judgment has been reviewed by the Division Bench by its order dated 12.09.2012. Therefore, the judgment disposing of the writ petitions require to be reviewed and made consistent with the order of the Division Bench in R.P.No.466 of 2012 and connected cases.

¶49

Accordingly, these review petitions are disposed of clarifying that the writ petitioners will be governed by the judgment in Writ Appeal No.1382 of 2011 and connected cases as reviewed by order in R.P.No.466/2012 and connected cases.

¶50

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶51

Superintendent v. P.P.Sudheer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Superintendent v. P.P.Sudheer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

All Kerala Chicken Merchants & Commissio Vs State of Kerala & Others

Azoora Beevi Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Bank

Badarudeen a. Vs the Authorised Officer, Thiruvananthapuram District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

T.Baburaj and Another Vs Faizal K.

M/S.Kairali Ayurvedic Health Resort Pvt.Ltd Vs the Commercial Tax Officer (Luxury Tax)

Sreekumaran Nair v Vs Sreekumaran Thampi