Allowed

C.O.Johnson v. Commercial Tax Officer

Kerala HC10 Dec 2014WP(C)/24734/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala issued a writ of mandamus directing the Commercial Tax Officer to consider representations filed by the petitioner within six weeks, providing an opportunity of hearing to concerned parties before passing final orders.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st Respondent to consider representations Exts. P2 and P6 and pass orders within six weeks after hearing the petitioner.

C.O.Johnson Vs Commercial Tax Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 24734 of 2014 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

C.O.JOHNSON, GLOBAL BACK WATERS, NELLIMUKKU, KAVANAD P.O., KOLLAM-691 003.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.G.VIJAYAN UNNITHAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶13

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶14

ADDL. R3 & R4 IMPLEADED.

¶15

3. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶16

4. THE SECRETARY, KOLLAM CORPORATION, CORPORATION BUILDING, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶17

*** IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD.10.10.2014 IN I.A.NO.13468/2014.**

¶18

R1 TO R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BOBBY JOHN PULICKAPARAMBIL R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS,SC

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

msv/

¶21

WP(C).No. 24734 of 2014 (N)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY NOTICE NO.LT.32022902261/2013-14 DATED 12.02.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶25

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.12.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21.02.2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXT.P4: TRUE COPIES OF THE LICENCE ISSUED FOR THE YEARS 2013-14 AND 2014-15 BY THE KOLLAM CORPORATION TO THE PETITIONER AND PRODUCED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DATED 01.08.2013 AND PRODUCED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01.05.2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (MARKETING), DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, BEARING NO.M4-3003/2012 DATED 26.9.2014.

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Ms v/

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶37

========================

¶38

W.P.(C). No. 24734 of 2014

¶39

¶40

Dated this the 10^th day of December, 2014

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶43

prayers:

¶44

“i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1^st respondent to hear and dispose Exts. P2 and P6 representations filed by the petitioner.

¶45

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1^st respondent to keep in abeyance all proceedings in furtherance of Ext.P1 notice.”

¶46

When the matter is taken up for consideration today, the

¶47

learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance projected in this writ petition has also been highlighted by way of Exts. P2 and P6 representations which are pending consideration before the 1^st respondent. It is stated that, the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is given to the said respondent to have it considered and finalized within a reasonable time.

¶48

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the additional 4^th

¶49

W.P.C. No. 24734 of 2014 -2-

¶50

respondent as well. The learned Government Pleader submits that, an inspection was already conducted and an order imposing penalty was passed on 29.3.2014, which is not under challenge in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the inspection stated as conducted was not with reference to the registration and that the petitioner has already moved the appellate authority and the appeal is pending.

¶51

After hearing both the sides, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 and P6 in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing the petitioner and other interested parties concerned at the earliest, at any rate, within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶52

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 1^st respondent for further steps.

¶53

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶54

kp/-

C.O.Johnson v. Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.O.Johnson v. Commercial 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

Ibrahim Kutty Vs O Mohammed Aslam

K.T.Velayudhan Vs Prof (Dr.)v.N.Rajasekharan Pillai

M/S.Sandeepani Smart Village Vs the Syndicate Bank

Elavakkattu Ceramics Vs Authorised Officer

Saleem Hassainar @ Sali Vs Authorized Officer, the Federal Bank Ltd.

P.a.Girija Vs State of Kerala