Partly allowed

M.A Kareem v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Kerala HC31 Oct 2014WP(C)/26724/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged a conditional stay order imposed by the Commercial Tax Appellate Authority during the pendency of appeals against assessment orders. The Court held that since the penalty forming the basis of one assessment order was set aside, the condition under that specific order is dispensed with, but the petitioner must satisfy other conditions for limited tim

What did the court decide?

Condition imposed in Ext. P3(a) order dispensed with; petitioner granted two weeks to satisfy conditions in Ext. P3 and P3(b) orders.

M.A Kareem Vs the Commercial Tax Officer — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/9TH KARTHIKA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 26724 of 2014 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

M.A. KAREEM, M/S. QUILON SAW MILLS, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶13

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶14

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

RVS.

¶17

WP(C).No. 26724 of 2014 (M)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶20

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

¶21

EXT.P1.	TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2005-2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10/03/2014.
EXT.P1(A).	COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2006-2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10/03/2014.
EXT.P1(B)	COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2006-2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10/03/2014.
EXT.P2.	COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05/08/2014.
EXT.P2(A)	COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05/08/2014.
EXT.P2(B).	COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05/08/2014.
EXT.P3.	COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25/08/2014.
EXT.P3(A)	COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25/08/2014.
EXT.P3(B).	COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25/08/2014.
EXT.P4	COPY OF INVOICE NO.152 ISSUED BY MURUKKUM VEETTIL SAW MILLS, KILIKOLLUR DATED 30/07/2014.
EXT.P4(A).	COPY OF INVOICE NO.046 ISSUED BY DEEPAM SAW MILLS DATED 05/08/2014.
EXT.P4(B)	COPY OF INVOICE NO.048 ISSUED BY DEEPAM SAW MILLS DATED 11/08/2014.
EXT.P4(C).	COPY OF INVOICE NO.050 ISSUED BY DEEPAM SAW MILLS DATED 20/08/2014.
EXT.P4(D)	COPY OF INVOICE NO.1077 ISSUED BY DEEPAM SAW MILLS DATED 02/08/2014.
EXT.P4(E)	COPY OF INVOICE NO.569 ISSUED BY ORIENT GLASS & PLYWOOD EMPORIUM DATED 22/03/2014.

¶22

WP(C).No. 26724 of 2014 (M)

¶23

EXT.P5	COPY OF	LODGER ACCOUNT OF	GULFAR (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
EXT.P5(A)	COPY OF	LODGER ACCOUNT OF	GULFAR (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
EXT.P5(B)	COPY OF	LODGER ACCOUNT OF	GULFAR (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
EXT.P5(C)	COPY OF	LODGER ACCOUNT OF	GULFAR (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
EXT.P5(D)	COPY OF	LODGER ACCOUNT OF	GULFAR (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
EXT.P6	COPY OF 31/05/20	FORM NO.16A OF GU 06.	LFAR (INDIA) PVT. LTD. DATED

¶24

EXT.P6(A) COPY OF FORM NO.16A OF GULFAR (INDIA) PVT. LTD.DATED 31/05/2006.

¶25

EXT.P6(B) COPY OF FORM NO.16A OF GULFAR (INDIA) PVT. LTD. DATED 31/05/2006.

¶26

EXT.P7 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19/02/2013.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶28

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

NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

RVS.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶34

¶35

W.P.(C) No. 26724 of 2014

¶36

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

The petitioner is aggrieved of the condition imposed by the appellate authority/second respondent, while granting interim stay during pendency of appeal preferred by the petitioner against Ext. P1 series assessment orders. The case of the petitioner is that, the assessment has been finalized by the first respondent without any regard to the actual facts and figures. Hence Ext. P1 series assessment orders are under challenge by way of Ext. P2 series appeals before the second respondent. After considering I.As for stay, the second respondent passed Exts. P3 series conditional orders in respect of assessment years 2005-'06, 2006-'07 and 2007-'08 directing the petitioner to satisfy 35%, 30% and 35% respectively of the balance tax, so as to avail interim stay during pendency of appeals. This in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶39

When the matter came up for consideration on 15.10.2014, the following interim order was passed :

¶40

W.P.(C) No. 26724 of 2014

¶41

: 2 :

¶42

“Challenge is against the condition imposed by the second respondent while granting interim stay during pendency of appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance is mainly with regard to Ext. P3(a). It is pointed out that Ext. P1(a) assessment order was solely based on the penalty imposed upon the petitioner. But the penalty was set aside subsequently as per Ext. P7, which has not been considered either by the assessing authority or by the appellate authority.

¶43

The learned Government Pleader seeks fro time to ascertain the factual. Post next week.

¶44

Based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the grievance now sought to be pressed before this Court will stand confined to Ext. P3(a) order, the learned Government Pleader was required to get instructions with regard to the factual position narrated in the writ petition.

¶45

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext. P1 (a) assessment order was passed merely based on the 'penalty' imposed upon the petitioner. This penalty was sought to be challenged by filing appeal before the second respondent and that the same was intercepted by the said respondent, setting aside the

¶46

W.P.(C) No. 26724 of 2014

¶47

: 3 :

¶48

order of penalty vide Ext. P7 order dated 19.02.2013. This being the position, there is absolutely no rhyme or reason in fixing the quantum based on penalty as per Ext.P1(a) and hence the condition imposed by the second respondent vide Ext. P3(a) is not correct or sustainable.

¶49

The learned Government Pleader submits that penalty was imposed upon the petitioner in respect of two different years and the order stated as passed in favour of the petitioner vide Ext. P7 is only in respect of 2006-'07. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, there is a stay granted by the Tribunal as per order dated 30.04.2013, with regard to other instance.

¶50

In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the case projected by the petitioner as per the concerned appeal requires to be finalized on merit. Accordingly, the petitioner is required to satisfy the condition imposed by the second respondent vide Ext. P3 and P3(b) orders, for which a further period of 'two weeks' is granted. In respect of Ext. P3(a), the condition imposed stands dispensed with and the petitioner shall continue to avail the benefit of interim stay during pendency of Ext. P2 series appeals.

¶51

W.P.(C) No. 26724 of 2014

¶52

: 4 :

¶53

The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for further steps.

¶54

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶57

kmd

M.A Kareem v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.A Kareem 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mary Jose Vs Rama Raja Prema Prasad

Giby Thomas Vs Executive Engineer

Tomy O.A Vs Authorised Officer

Omanakuttan Pillai Vs the Joint Rto

P.A George Xavier Vs State of Kerala

Supriya Bhai Vs the Kottayam District Co-Op. Bank Ltd.