Disposed

Premkumar v. the Sales Tax Officer

Kerala HC6 Feb 2013WP(C)/2189/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of WI4petition regarding restoration of cancelled business registration cancelled by respondent due to lack of security. Directed petitioner to appear for service of fresh notice and filing of objections within one week.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to appear for service of notice and filing of objections within one week; respondent to pass fresh orders within one week thereafter.

Premkumar Vs the Sales Tax Officer — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/17TH MAGHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 2189 of 2013 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

PREMKUMAR. P., PROPRIETOR OF SAI TRADING COMPANY, VELAPPAYA ROAD, MULAGUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

THE SALES TAX OFFICER-I, IIIRD CIRCLE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDING, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001.

¶11

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

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

rs.

¶14

WP(C).No. 2189 of 2013 (W)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶17

EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE ORDER NO.32080750918 C/12-13 DATED 17.11.2012 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT CANCELLING THE REGISTRATION OF THE PETITIONERS BUSINESS UNDER KVAT ACT AND CST ACT.

¶18

EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.28627 OF 2012 9C) DATED 04.01.2013 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶19

EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 14.01.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.

¶20

EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE RECEIPT OF EXT. P2, P3 AND COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

ANTONY DOMINIC,J

W.P.(C) No.2189 of 2013

¶27

Dated this the 6^th day of February, 2013

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Petitioner was a dealer under the KVAT and CST Acts. For the reason that additional security was not furnished, his registration was cancelled by Ext.P1 order. That order was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.28627 of 2012. Holding that the demand for additional security was contrary to Section 17 of the KVAT Act and Section 7 of the CST Act, cancellation of registration was held to be illegal. Accordingly, setting aside the impugned proceedings, this Court disposed of the writ petition giving liberty to the respondent to initiate fresh proceedings. It was also directed that if the respondent intends to initiate fresh proceedings, he shall issue notice without any delay and on that basis, orders shall be passed within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶30

W.P.(c) No.2189 of 2013

¶31

: 2 :

¶32

The petitioner says that accordingly, he produced a copy of the judgment before the respondent and thereafter, requested for restoration of the registration. Complaining that the registration is not restored, he has filed this writ petition.

¶33

Learned Government Pleader, who has obtained instructions, submits that the judgment was produced on 15.01.2013 and that fresh notice dated 19.01.2013 was despatched to the petitioner on 23.01.2013. It is also submitted that the notice has not been served on the petitioner and that finalisation of the proceedings is on account of the delay in serving notice on the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader also contended that having regard to the facts explained in Ext.P1 order, the petitioner shall not be allowed to have the registration restored in the meanwhile.

¶34

When Ext.P2 judgment was rendered setting aside the order cancelling registration, the petitioner wanted to

¶35

W.P.(c) No.2189 of 2013

¶36

: 3 :

¶37

immediate orders for restoration of his registration. It was taking note of that prayer, this Court directed that the proceedings be completed within the time frame mentioned in paragraph 11 of the judgment. Since the delay in the finalisation is on account of the delay in serving notice on the petitioner, that problem can be got over if the petitioner appears before the respondent and receives the notice in question.

¶38

Therefore, I direct that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent on 08.02.2013 as suggested by the counsel for the petitioner. Thereupon, the respondent shall serve on the petitioner notice dated 19.01.2013. Thereupon the petitioner shall file his objections within one week from today. Respondent agrees that fresh orders on the notice shall be passed within one week thereafter.

¶39

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶40

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶41

Premkumar v. the Sales Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premkumar v. the Sales 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

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

Sarojini Ponnan P.V. Vs Ksfe Ltd.

Syamala P.K. Vs Kerala Financial Corporation

Sukumaran.T. Vs Syndicate Bank