Partly allowed

M/S.a.B.M Civil Ventures Private Ltd. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Dec 2013WP(C)/29071/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court considered a writ petition challenging a stay order in tax penalty appeals. It declined a detailed merits hearing but modified the order to reduce the required petition to a lower deposit and bank guarantee, deemed sufficiently non-onerous.

What did the court decide?

Ext. P8 stay order modified: required deposit reduced to Rs. 25,00,000 with bank guarantee for balance, to be furnished within three weeks.

M/S.a.B.M Civil Ventures Private Ltd. Vs the State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 29071 of 2013 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M/S.A.B.M CIVIL VENTURES PRIVATE LTD 1ST FLOOR, ABM TOWERS, KADAVANTHRA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.K.ABRAHAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM-682018.

¶12

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER-3 WORKS CONTRACT, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682018.

¶13

4. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682018.

¶14

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MANOJ P. KUNJACHAN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

DCS

¶17

WP(C).No. 29071 of 2013 (H)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.28-6-2013 IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 OF R3.

¶21

EXHIBIT P1A : TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.28-6-2013 IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 OF R3.

¶22

EXHIBIT P1B : TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.28-6-2013 IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 OF R3.

¶23

EXHIBIT P1C : TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.28-6-2013 IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 OF R3.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.28-6-2013 IN RESPECT OF PENALTY FOR THE YEAR 2007-2008.

¶25

EXHIBIT P2A : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.28-6-2013 IN RESPECT OF PENALTY FOR THE YEAR 2008-2009.

¶26

EXHIBIT P2B : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.28-6-2013 IN RESPECT OF PENALTY FOR THE YEAR 2009-2010.

¶27

EXHIBIT P2C : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.28-6-2013 IN RESPECT OF PENALTY FOR THE YEAR 2010-2011.

¶28

EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008.

¶29

EXHIBIT P3A : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009.

¶30

EXHIBIT P3B : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010.

¶31

EXHIBIT P3C : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011.

¶32

EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL IN RESPECT OF PENALTY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2 PERTAINING TO THE YEAR 2007-2008.

¶33

EXHIBIT P4A : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL IN RESPECT OF PENALTY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2 PERTAINING TO THE YEAR 2008-2009.

¶34

DCS

¶35

WP(C).No. 29071 of 2013 (H)

¶36

EXHIBIT P4B : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL IN RESPECT OF PENALTY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2 PERTAINING TO THE YEAR 2009-2010.

¶37

EXHIBIT P4C : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL IN RESPECT OF PENALTY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2 PERTAINING TO THE YEAR 2010--2011.

¶38

EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY R4 PERTAINING TO THE YEAR 2007-2008 DATED 15.10.2013

¶39

EXHIBIT P5A : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY R4 PERTAINING TO THE YEAR 2008-2009 DATED 15.10.2013

¶40

EXHIBIT P5B : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY R4 PERTAINING TO THE YEAR 2009-2010 DATED 15.10.2013

¶41

EXHIBIT P5C : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY R4 PERTAINING TO THE YEAR 2010-2011 DATED 15.10.2013

¶42

EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN RESPECT OF PENALTY ISSUED BY R4 PERTAINING TO THE YEAR 2007-2008 DATED 15.10.2013

¶43

EXHIBIT P6A : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN RESPECT OF PENALTY ISSUED BY R4 PERTAINING TO THE YEAR 2008-2009 DATED 15.10.2013

¶44

EXHIBIT P6B : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN RESPECT OF PENALTY ISSUED BY R4 PERTAINING TO THE YEAR 2009-2010 DATED 15.10.2013

¶45

EXHIBIT P6C : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN RESPECT OF PENALTY ISSUED BY R4 PERTAINING TO THE YEAR 2010-2011 DATED 15.10.2013

¶46

EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.22-10-2013 IN WPC 25784 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶47

EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DT.7-11-2013 OF THE R2.

¶48

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

DCS

V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

¶53

------------------------------W.P.(C) No.29071 of 2013

¶54

--------------------------------------- Dated this the 4^th day of December, 2013

¶55

Ext. P8 conditional order of stay passed in Exts. P3 and P4 series appeals are impugned. The appeals have been filed against Ext.P1 series orders of assessment and Ext. P2 series orders imposing penalty. Ext. P8 order inter alia directs the petitioner to deposit 30% of the total demand (Rs.1,32,93,839/- x 30/100 = Rs.39,88,152/-) and to furnish adequate security for the balance to the satisfaction of the assessing authority.

¶56

A detailed consideration of the merits of this case at this juncture would prejudice the contentions of either parties in the statutory appeals pending. Suffice to say that the condition imposed in Ext. P8 order is not so onerous or unreasonable under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶57

I however modify Ext. P8 order by permitting the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- and to furnish bank guarantee for the remaining sum of Rs. 14,88,152/-. The petitioner shall make the deposit and furnish bank guarantee in addition to furnishing security for the balance 70% of the total amount demanded. The same shall be done within a period of three weeks from today and to the satisfaction of the

¶58

W.P.(C) No.29071 of 2013 2

¶59

assessing authority.

¶60

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition with the judgment before the second respondent for compliance.

¶61

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶62

V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶63

DCS

M/S.a.B.M Civil Ventures Private Ltd. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.a.B.M Civil Ventures Private Ltd. v. the State of Kerala

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

K.Sivaprasad Vs Sri.K.G.Mohanlal

The Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Limited Vs M/S.Ardeshir B.Cursetjee & Sons Ltd.

Sheeja Vs the Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore

Salmath Vs I.D.C.B.

Mathew Varghese Vs the District Collector

Narayanan Nair M. Vs the District Collector, Kollam