Dismissed

Maxwell Electric Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer (Wc & Lt)

Kerala HC31 May 2016WA/1010/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an appeal against a Single Judge's order upholding the reassessment of income and imposition of penalty. The court held that the Single Judge correctly refrained from interfering with the appellate authority's discretionary powers and refusal of a blanket stay.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit; no order on costs.

Maxwell Electric Corporation Vs Commercial Tax… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2016/10TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

W.A.No.1010 of 2016 IN WP(C)17901/2016

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17901/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 23-05-2016

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

MAXWELL ELECTRIC CORPORATION 1ST FLOOR, MANAPURAM HOTELS, MARAR ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001, REPRESENTED BY SRI. BINOJ T.R., PROPRIETOR.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.V.VIMAL

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC & LT) COMMERCIAL TAX COMPLEX, POOTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR-680 004.

¶12

INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 004.

¶13

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 004.

¶14

R BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SOBHA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶15

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.

¶17

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Writ Appeal No.1010 of 2016

¶18

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

¶19

Dated this the 31^st day of May, 2016

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

¶22

The appellant is a works contractor. For the years 2009-2010

¶23

and 2010-2011, the appellant initially applied for compounding, and it was allowed. Nevertheless, on the premise that for those years there was an escaped assessment, the first respondent issued proceedings rejecting the compounding and imposing a penalty.

¶24

Aggrieved, the appellant filed a statutory appeal, which was allowed. But, in the course of time, on 8.3.2016, the first respondent again found what was said to be escaped assessment for the same years. Consequently, when proceedings were issued, the appellant once again approached the Appellate Authority raising various contentions: The principal among them is that because the earlier appellate orders have already attained finality, the repeated reopening of the assessment is impermissible.

¶25

Writ Appeal No.1010 of 2016

¶26

: 2 :

¶27

In that context, the Appellate Authority passed Ext.P12 stay order; it was conditional. For the stay to be operational, the appellant was directed to deposit 30% of the disputed amount. Under those circumstances, the appellant filed W.P.(C)No.17901/16 before this Court.

¶28

A learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 23.5.2016, having considered the issue, came to the conclusion that the order impugned is unassailable and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. Further aggrieved, the appellant is before us in the writ appeal.

¶29

According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the grounds of appeal, especially ground Nos.5 and 6, clinchingly establish that the appellate authority ought to have stayed the penalty proceedings in their entirety. According to him, imposing a condition in pecuniary terms for the stay to be operational is impermissible. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel

¶30

Writ Appeal No.1010 of 2016

¶31

: 3 :

¶32

has placed reliance on Koothattukulam Liquors v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax¹ .

¶33

To begin with, there can be no quarrel concerning the principle of law laid down in Koothattukulam Liquors. Nevertheless, the fact remains that it addresses the issue on the merits, which stage the issue on hand has not reached as yet. Coming back to the facts, we may observe that the Appellate Authority, in the first place, has found a prima facie case established by the appellant. At any rate, exercising his discretion, the authority granted a stay on the condition of the appellant depositing 30% of the disputed amount.

¶34

It needs no reiteration that the adjudicatory ambit of judicial review, especially under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is extremely limited. The exercise of discretion by the appellate authority cannot be said to be illegal, much less perverse. By the same reckoning, the learned Single Judge refusing to interfere with

¶35

1 (2014) 22 KTR 239 (SC)

¶36

Writ Appeal No.1010 of 2016

¶37

: 4 :

¶38

what is essentially an exercise of discretion by a statutory authority fully accords with the established principles of judicial review. In an intra-court appeal, it cannot be different, either. Accordingly, we

¶39

dismiss the writ appeal as devoid of any merit. No order on costs.

¶40

SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE

¶41

SD/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

¶42

jes

Maxwell Electric Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer (Wc & Lt)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maxwell Electric Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer (Wc & Lt)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hotel Surya Vs the State of Kerala

Union of India Vs K.Parasurama Iyer

R. Sivadasan Nair Vs the Tiruvananthapuram Regional Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd.

M/S.Sadiq Brothers Marine Works, Kochi. Vs Commissioner of Customs, Cochin.

M/S.Kasmisons Builders Pvt.Ltd Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax

The Manager Vs v.H.Saritha