This writ petition challenging an assessment order under the KVAT Act was dismissed. The single-judge court held that a statutory appeal is the appropriate remedy and not a writ petition. The petitioner was directed to file an appeal within two weeks.
Petitioner directed to file an appeal within two weeks; Writ Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/15TH CHAITHRA 1935
WP(C).No. 9677 of 2013 (H)
PETITIONER(S):
STEPHEN BERNARD, PROPRIETOR, M/s STEPHEN BERNARDCONSTRUCTION COMPANY 230/231, MASTER MIND-IV ROYAL PALM ESTATE, AAREY MILK COLONY, GOREGON (E) MUMBAI 400 015
BY ADV. SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB
RESPONDENT(S):
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 9677 of 2013
APPENDIX
EXHIBITS
P2TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE RETURN FILED FOR 1ST QUARTER ie, APRIL TO JUNE 2012
P4TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED FROM KERALA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
P7TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO.20C FROM VSSC FOR 2ND QUARTER ic, JULYSEPTEMBER OF 2012
P8TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE RETURN FILED FOR 2ND QUARTER ie, JULY-SEPTEMBER OF 2012
P9TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE RETURN FILED FOR 3RD QUARTER ie, OCTOBER-DECEMBER OF 2012
/true copy/
sd/- P.A. To Judge
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
W.P.(C).9677/2013
Dated this the 5th day of April, 2013
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is an assessee under the KVAT Act. He was issued Ext.P3 notice. For reasons of his own, petitioner did not file any reply. Therefore, assessment has been completed and Ext.P5 order has been issued on 22.2.2013 which was served on the petitioner on 5.3.2013. It is challenging Ext.P5, the writ petition is filed.
W.P.(C).9677/13
2
petitioner files an appeal against Ext.P5 within two weeks from today, concerned appellate authority will entertain the appeal ignoring the delay, in the meanwhile.
Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the appellate authority for
compliance.
Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
mrcs
/true copy/
sd/- P.A. To Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition is the appropriate remedy to challenge an assessment order under the KVAT Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
STEPHEN BERNARD
THE COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (WORKS CONTRACT), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
