Single-judge bench dismissed a writ petition challenging an Appellate Tribunal order that treated the date of knowledge by officials as the start of the limitation period for filing a condonation of delay application, finding no error in the Tribunal's approach.
Writ petition dismissed with no costs.
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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2015/2ND SRAVANA, 1937
WP(C).No. 13055 of 2015 (F)
PETITIONER :
C.V. JOBBY PAVIZHAM JEWELLERS, G.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD.
BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON
RESPONDENT(S) :
1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER SQUAD NO.VII, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES PALAKKAD - 678 001.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, EDAPPALLY,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 24.
3. KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. R. RANJITH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...2/-
WP(C).No. 13055 of 2015 (F)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
Mn
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C).No.13055/2015
Dated this the 24th Day of July, 2015
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is arising out of an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal on a petition for condonation of delay filed by the State for condoning delay of 867 days in filing second appeal against the assessment for the year 2007-08.
W.P.(C).No.13055/2015
-:2:-
the second respondent along with the application for condonation of delay before the Tribunal, there is a delay of 867 days. The knowledge can only be attributed for the cause of delay and not for reckoning period of limitation. Knowledge has been now taken as the period to reckon the delay, that is legally erroneous. Of course, based on the knowledge, any delay could have been condoned, if such knowledge is not attributable to any wilful laches on the part of the Officials though, the reasons assigned for the delay have to be referred in the order itself.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
ms
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Appellate Tribunal's order regarding the reckoning of delay period based on the date of knowledge of the officials rather than the date of the decree.
C.V. Jobby Pavizham Jewellers
Intelligence Officer Squad No.VII, Department of Commercial Taxes Palakkad
Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence) Department of Commercial Taxes, Edappally
Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal
A.Muhammed Mustaque
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
