Disposed

Meena Asokan v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Kerala HC5 Apr 2013WP(C)/9657/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a KGST defaulter facing property auction, sought stay of sale confirmation. Court granted stay contingent upon petitioner applying for Amnesty Scheme benefits within ten days and requested service of order on respondents.

What did the court decide?

Sale to be not confirmed subject to petitioner applying for Amnesty Scheme benefits within ten days; stay until orders on application are passed.

Meena Asokan Vs the Commercial Tax Officer — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/15TH CHAITHRA 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 9657 of 2013 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

MEENA ASOKAN, W/O C.K. ASOKAN, PROPRIETRIX, O.D.M. SILICATE CHARANGATTU HOUSE, KANICHUKULNAGARA, CHERTHALA ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.H.HAMZA ROWTHER SRI.V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, IST CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA 688001

¶11

THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001

¶12

THE DEPUTY THASILDAR (RR), TALUK OFICE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN- 688014

¶13

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 0504-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 9657 of 2013 (F)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER

¶19

EXHIBIT P2 -TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE THASHSILDAR, CHERTHALA

¶20

EXHIBIT P3 -TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶21

EXHIBIT P4 -TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR SALE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶22

EXHIBIT P5 -TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF SALE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

//True copy//

PA TO JUDGE.

uj.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

W.P.(C).9657/2013

Dated this the 5^th day of April, 2013

¶31

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶34

Petitioner is a defaulter of dues under the KGST Act. On account of the above, revenue recovery proceedings are initiated and her properties are scheduled to be sold today (5.4.2013) pursuant to Ext.P5 notice. It is at that stage, this writ petition is filed stating that w.e.f. 1.4.2013, an Amnesty Scheme is introduced and that the petitioner is desirous of applying for the same.

¶35

The fact that an Amnesty Scheme has been introduced is a matter confirmed by the respondents also. Therefore, if the petitioner is eligible for the same, there is no reason to deny the petitioner an opportunity to apply for the same.

¶36

W.P.(C).9657/13

¶37

¶38

In such circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions.

¶39

If the sale takes place in pursuance to Ext.P5, same shall not be confirmed. This shall however, be subject to the condition that the petitioner should apply for the benefit of Amnesty Scheme within ten days from today, and if such an application is filed, stay of confirmation will continue until orders are passed on such application.

¶40

Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before respondents 1 and 3 for compliance.

¶41

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶42

mrcs

¶43

/true copy/

Meena Asokan v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena Asokan v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunnel Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd. Vs Chennai Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd.

Amma Center for Diagnosis and Preventive Medicine (P0 Ltd. Vs Kims Hospital and Surgical Centre

R.Padmini Vs State of Kerala and Others

G.Ramachandran Nair Vs the Superintendent of Police

Lizy Sajeev Vs Intelligence Inspector

Stephen Bernard Vs the Commissioner