Dismissed

Ajayakumar C. v. the Deputy Commissioner

Kerala HC7 Jul 2015WP(C)/16385/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the writ petition filed for error correction under Section 66 of the Kerala VAT Act. Finding the impugned order lacking details on alleged errors, the court held the authority justified its rejection and allowed a one-month stay on coercive measures.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty to challenge Ext.P2 in appeal; coercive steps deferred for one month.

Ajayakumar C. Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2015/16TH ASHADHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 16385 of 2015 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

AJAYAKUMAR C., VENATTUPEEDIKAYIL, CHERUKOLE P.O., MAVELIKKARA - 690 104, AND THE OWNER OF SRI MATHA AGENCY, TIN:32041060672, PUTHIYACAVU, MAVELIKKARA P.O., MAVELIKKARA-690 101.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.DIPU.R SRI.SANAL P.RAJ SMT.P.A.PRIYA SRI.K.K.RATHEESH KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.

¶13

2. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

¶14

COMMERCIAL TAXES, CHENGANNUR, CHENGANNUR-689 121.

¶15

3. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,

¶16

OFFICE OF THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,

¶17

MAVELIKKARA-690 101.

¶18

4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE, MAVELIKKARA - 690 101.

¶19

5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, CHENNITHALA VILLAGE, CHENNITHALA P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA-690 105.

¶20

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

msv/

¶23

WP(C).No. 16385 of 2015 (W)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶26

P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND IN FORM NO.12 DATED 11.8.2014.

¶27

P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.32041060672/12-13 DATED 16.7.2014.

¶28

P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 23.10.2014.

¶29

P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 24.10.2014.

¶30

P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 1.11.2014.

¶31

P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 1.11.2014.

¶32

P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 DATED 13.5.2015.

¶33

P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND PRIOR TO ATTACHMENT OF LAND UNDER SECTION 34 DATED 13.5.2015.

¶34

P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30.5.2015.

¶35

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶41

*******************************************************

¶42

W.P.(C) No.16385 of 2015

¶43

******************************************************* Dated this the 7^th day of July, 2015

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

The petitioner, aggrieved by Ext.P2 order, filed Ext.P3 rectification petition. This was rejected by Ext.P4. Thereafter, the petitioner raised certain complaints before the higher authorities. It appears that the above complaints are pending.

¶46

According to the petitioner, certain errors are crept in

¶47

Ext.P2 order. Therefore, those errors are liable to be corrected by invoking under Section 66 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. It is further submitted that the order rejecting the application is cryptic without any reasons.

¶48

Learned Government Pleader points out that the petitioner has not set out any details regarding errors in Ext.P3 application and therefore, the Authority is justified in rejecting the petitioner’s application.

¶49

I have also gone through Ext.P2 order. In Ext.P2 order, there is nothing indicated in regarding the alleged errors in Ext.P3.

¶50

W.P.(C) No.16385 of 2015 2

¶51

In the absence of any details, the Authority is justified in rejecting such application. Therefore, any further complaint against such rejection also appears to be without any substance.

¶52

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner has any grievance in Ext.P2, he is at liberty to challenge in an appeal in the appropriate manner. To work out the statutory remedy against Ext.P2, all coercive steps against the petitioner shall be deferred for a period of one month.

¶53

Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶54

Ajayakumar C. v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajayakumar C. v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Chandrashekara Naik Vs the Block Development Officer Manjeshwar

M/S.Saji Batteries Private Limited Vs the State of Kerala

Nisha Prakashan Vs State of Kerala

Soman T.T. Vs the Special Deputy Tahsildar

Latheef P.P. Vs Tata Motor Finance Ltd.

Rajan Vs the Federal Bank Limited