Disposed

M/S. Rollmen Engineering Works (P) Ltd. v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Kerala HC13 Jan 2016WP(C)/1184/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the petitioner's delay condonation and stay petitions within one month. Recovery steps pending were to remain in abeyance during this period, with the 2nd respondent hearing the petitioner first.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the delay condonation and stay petitions within one month; recovery steps kept in abeyance.

M/S. Rollmen Engineering Works (P) Ltd. Vs the… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/23RD POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 1184 of 2016 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M/S. ROLLMEN ENGINEERING WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED, VIII/802C, NEW INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI.NIXON JOSEPH.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, IIIRD CIRCLE, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶11

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶12

3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY.K.T

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

mbr/

¶16

WP(C).No. 1184 of 2016 (W)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶19

P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 (CST ACT) DT 12-10-2015.

¶20

P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT 1-1-2016.

¶21

P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT 1-1-2016.

¶22

P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT 1-1-2016.

¶23

P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DT 4-12-2015.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶29

W.P.(C). No. 1184 of 2016

¶30

===================================================== Dated this the 13^th day of January, 2016

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

Against Ext.P1 assessment order passed under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the KVAT Act, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P4 stay petition along with Ext.P3 delay condonation petition before the 2^nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that even before the consideration of the stay petition by the 2^nd respondent, recovery steps have been initiated by issuing Ext.P5 demand notice for recovery of the amounts confirmed against the petitioner.

¶33

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

¶34

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I dispose the writ petition with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 delay condonation petition and Ext.P4 stay petition preferred by the petitioner before him, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Recovery steps for recovery of amounts

¶35

-2-

¶36

W.P.(C). No. 1184 of 2016

¶37

pursuant to Ext.P5 notice, shall be kept in abeyance till such time as the 2^nd respondent passes orders as directed and communicates the same to the petitioner.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶40

das /13.01.2016

M/S. Rollmen Engineering Works (P) Ltd. v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Rollmen Engineering Works (P) Ltd. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Global Granites Vs the Authorized Officer, South Indian Bank Ltd.

M/S.Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Shajahan M S Vs State Bank of Travancore

Saji.D Vs Alappuzha District Co-Operative Bank Limited

Deepak T.Pottackal Vs Assistant Commissioner

M/S. Soorya International Vs the Deputy Commissioner