Partly allowed

M/S.N.J.Business Corporation v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Feb 2016WA/190/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court clarified the scope of intra-court appellate jurisdiction regarding a condition imposed by the revisional authority. It directed that the revisional authority shall decide issues untrammelled by the single judge, provided cogent material shows appropriate action on a return revision request by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was allowed in modification of the single judge's judgment, with the compliance period for the stay order condition extended until 15.02.2016.

M/S.N.J.Business Corporation Vs State of Kerala — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/13TH MAGHA, 1937 WA.No. 190 of 2016 (W) IN WP(C).32183/2015

¶5

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 32183/2015 DATED 21-10-2015

¶6

APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE WPC:

¶7

M/S.N.J.BUSINESS CORPORATION STONE HOUSE, MARKET ROAD, ALUVA ERNAKULAM - 683 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR.ALTHAAF JEHANGIR.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR

¶9

SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER - IV COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALUVA - 683 101.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALUVA - 683 101.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERY - 682 002.

¶15

TRINETRA SUPER RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED NOW KNOWN AS ADITYA BIRLA RETAIL LIMITED, 5/149/B ALAYKKAPARAMBU, N.H BYEPASS, THURAVOOR P.O. ALAPPUZHA - 683 532.

¶16

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.

¶19

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶20

W.A.No.190 of 2016

¶21

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2^nd day of February, 2016

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

¶24

1.We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Senior Government Pleader for the Department of Commercial Taxes.

¶25

2.One of the issues raised before the learned single Judge while seeking interference with the conditions imposed by the revisional authority while granting stay, pending statutory appeal under the KVAT Act, is that Trinetra Super Retail Private Limited had erroneously entered the TIN of the appellant NJ Business Corporation. We see from Ext.P3 that Trinetra Super Retail Private Limited had informed the Commercial Tax Officer, Department of Commercial Taxes, Aluva, which is the relevant authority for the appellant, that it

¶26

W.A.No.190 of 2016

¶27

¶28

has initiated the process of revising its returns for the financial year 2012-13, in view of the error in mentioning the TIN relating to NJ Business Corporation in its returns. But for Ext.P3, which is a communication between Trinetra Super Retail Private Limited and Department of Commercial Taxes, there is no material now and here to show that Trinetra Super Retail Private Limited had in fact initiated the process for revising its returns. It will be too far fetched if we stretch this intra court appellate jurisdiction to further probe into that matter, particularly when the judgment of the learned single Judge merely affirmed the condition imposed by the statutory authority while granting stay. We would, however, clarify that the revisional authority will decide all issues, untrammelled by anything stated in the judgment by the learned single Judge or in this judgment and if cogent material is shown that the request of Trinetra Super Retail Private Limited for revision of its returns has been received and appropriately acted upon by its assessing authority, such material will also be considered to the extent it may be relevant to conclude the appeal pending at the instance of the appellant herein.

¶29

W.A.No.190 of 2016

¶30

¶31

With the aforesaid clarification, this writ appeal is ordered as above in modification of the judgment of the learned single Judge. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we extend the period of time for compliance of the condition imposed by the revisional authority in the stay order until 15.02.2016, finally.

¶32

sd/-

¶33

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge

¶34

sd/- Anu Sivaraman, Judge

¶35

sj3/2

¶36

TRUE COPY

¶37

P.A.TO JUDGE

M/S.N.J.Business Corporation v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.N.J.Business Corporation v. State of Kerala

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

Bamba Maniyani Vs Paty

Parvathy Fashion Jewellers Vs State of Kerala

Ahammedkutty Vs the Kerala State Wakf Board

K.v.Muhammad Ali Haji Vs Madai Palli Jamayath Committee

State of Kerala Vs M/S.Asian Granitor India Ltd.

Lfa, Tdb Audit, Tvm Vs Secretary, Tdb