Allowed

Suju Mathew v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Kerala HC23 Dec 2015WP(C)/39663/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court considered a writ petition challenging a stay order. Finding that non-filing of audit reports cannot justify reopening assessment based on a Division Bench precedent, the Court quashed the stay order and directed the second respondent to decide the pending appeal within three months while staying recovery steps.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P3 order of stay quashed; direction to 2nd respondent to decide Ext.P2 appeal within three months; recovery steps kept in abeyance.

Suju Mathew Vs the Commercial Tax Officer — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/2ND POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).NO. 39663 OF 2015 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SUJU MATHEW, PROPRIETOR M/S.ESS & ESS. AGENCIES XXIII/495 A,UNICHIRA, KOCHI 33

¶8

BY ADVS.SMT.S.K.DEVI

¶9

SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES 1ST CIRCLE, KALAMASSERY-682620

¶12

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) II DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES ERNAKULAM 682015

¶13

3. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR(RR) TALUK OFFICE THIRUVALLA-691009

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.JENCJITH

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).NO. 39663 OF 2015 (G)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.32071286204/12-13 DATED 31.12.2014 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL AND GROUNDS

¶20

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER NO.KVATA 2214 OF 2015 DATED 24.11.2015

¶21

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶22

//TRUE COPY//

¶23

P A TO JUDGE

¶24

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. W.P.(C).No.39663 of 2015

¶25

............................................................. Dated this the 23^rd day of December, 2015

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P3 conditional order of stay passed in relation to the petitioner for the assessment year 2012-2013 under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the KVAT Act). The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is essentially that while passing Ext.P3 order, the 2^nd respondent did not exercise his discretion validly.

¶28

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶29

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find that the issue urged in the appeal is prima facie covered in favour of the petitioner by a Division Bench judgment of this Court which held that a mere non-filing of an audit report in Form 13 and 13A cannot be a ground for reopening assessment under Section 25(1)

¶30

-2-

¶31

W.P.(C). No.39663 of 2015

¶32

of the KVAT Act. Since this is one of the issue that is urged in the appeal, I quash Ext.P3 order and direct the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. I make it clear that recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against petitioner by Ext.P1 order of assessment shall be kept in abeyance till orders are passed by the 2^nd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner.

¶33

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶34

mns/23.12.15

Suju Mathew v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suju Mathew 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Ramachandran Vs the Authorized Officer

K.Ramachandran Vs the Authorized Officer, M/S.Repco Home Finance Ltd.

Ajith Prasad Vs State Bank of Travancore

V.a.Vinu Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

P.K.Ummer Vs Gireesh

M/S. Leisure De Holidays, Alappuzha Vs the Ingelligence Officer (Ib), Alappuzha