Allowed

Joshy Varghese v. the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Kerala HC6 Nov 2013WP(C)/7798/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged assessment orders imposing higher tax by deeming his crushing machine size larger than permitted for lower tax rates. The High Court quashed the erroneous orders and remitted the matter for de novo consideration.

What did the court decide?

Exhibits P4 and P5 orders were quashed and remitted for de novo consideration with a direction to issue fresh notice and pass final orders.

Joshy Varghese Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/15TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 7798 of 2013 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

-----------

¶8

JOSHY VARGHESE, PROPRIETOR, ST.MARY'S INDUSTRIES, ERUTTUTHODU, NEDIYASALA P.O., THODUPUZHA.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.RAJU JOSEPH (SR.)

¶10

SRI.K.T.POULOSE (KORATTY)

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

------------

¶13

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 1ST CIRCLE, THODUPUZHA-685 584.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K. SHAIJ RAJ

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 7798 of 2013 (Y)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶20

-----------------------

¶21

EXHIBIT P1.TRUE COPY OF THE PERMISSION GRANTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE YEAR 2008-2009 DATED 15/1/2009.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2.TRUE COPY OF THE PERMISSION GRANTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE YEAR 2009-2010 DATED 30/6/2009.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3.TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 18/1/2012.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4.TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER TOGETHER WITH DEMAND NOTICE PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE YEAR 2008-2009 DATED 16/2/2013.

¶25

EXHIBIT P5.TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS TOGHER WITH DEMAND NOTICE PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE YEAR 2009-2010 DATED 16/2/2013.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶27

----------------------

/TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

¶32

W.P.(C)NO.7798 OF 2013

¶33

Dated this the 6^th day of November, 2013

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

The petitioner maintains that the size of the crushing machine used is only 35 cm x 12.50 cm which does not exceed 30.48 cm x 22.86 cm. The petitioner points out that the tax at the compounded rate for machines not exceeding 30.48 cm x 22.86 cm is only Rs.50,000/- and Rs.40,000/- for the respective years. The petitioner was in fact permitted to pay tax at the compounded rate on this basis as per Exts.P1 and P2 orders.

¶36

Exts.P4 and P5 orders of assessment which followed surprisingly treat the size of machine of dimension 35 cm x 12.50 cm as bigger than 30.48 cm x 22.86 cm. The tax payable at the compounded rate has also been reckoned erroneously in Exts.P4 and P5 orders. The number of crushing machines used by the petitioner cannot also be easily deciphered in Exts.P4 and P5 orders, according to the Government Pleader.

¶37

I quash Exts.P4 and P5 orders and remit the

¶38

matter to the second respondent for de novo consideration. The

¶39

¶40

W.P.(C)NO.7798 OF 2013

¶41

second respondent shall issue fresh notice to the petitioner and pass final orders within a period of two months.

¶42

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

¶43

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶44

SD/V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.

¶45

cl.

Joshy Varghese v. the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joshy Varghese v. the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

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

Saju T.S Vs T.J Thomas

Sunil Vs M.S.Jaya IAS

State Bank of Travancore Vs Sanu.a.S.

Reji M.Poulose Vs Ms. Baby Joseph P.

G.Jayan Vs the Authorized Officer

Subscribers Chits (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax