Disposed

Sri.v.M.Tomy v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Kerala HC14 Jan 2016WP(C)/1346/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging revenue recovery for unpaid tax, the Court granted relief by directing the petitioner to pay the balance tax demand in two monthly installments. Upon compliance, the Court directed the appellate authority to hear the pending appeals without insisting on full pre-deposit and ordered recovery of confirmed amounts to be kept in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay remaining balance in two installments; upon compliance, appellate authority must hear appeals and stay recovery in abeyance.

Sri.v.M.Tomy Vs the Commercial Tax Officer — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/24TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 1346 of 2016 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SRI.V.M.TOMY, AGED 56 YEARS, M/S. VAZHAYIL AGENCIES, PRAKASH P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 609.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KATTAPPANA-685 508.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶12

3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KATTAPPANA SOUTH P.O., PIN-685 508.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY K.T.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 1346 of 2016 (P)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

P1 : COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32060622082/2006-07 DTD.16.6.2013 FOR THE YEAR 2006-07 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶20

P1A : COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32060622082/2007-08 DTD.17.6.2013 FOR THE YEAR 2007-08 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶21

P2 : COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD.23.9.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 06-07.

¶22

P2A : COPY OF THE APEPAL DTD.23.9.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 07-08.

¶23

P3 : COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE NO.A7-3516(C)/2013-14 DTD.22.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶24

P3A : COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE NO.A7-3516(D)/2013-14 DTD.22.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶25

P4 : COPY OF THE CONDITIONAL STAY ORDER NO.KVATA 2817/13 AND 2818/2013 DTD.16.12.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶26

P5 : COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT NO.489533 DTD.10.3.2014 AMOUNTED TO RS.25,000/- ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶27

P5A : COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT NO.489734 DTD.30.9.2014 AMOUNTED TO RS.25,000/- ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶28

P5B : COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT NO.88824 DTD.30.3.2015 AMOUNTED TO RS.15,000/- ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶35

W.P.(C). No. 1346 of 2016

¶36

===================================================== Dated this the 14^th day of January, 2016

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

The petitioner, who is aggrieved by the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against him for default in payment of tax arrears. The facts in the writ petition would indicate that against Ext.P1 series of assessment orders, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 series of appeals together with stay petitions. By Ext.P4 conditional order of stay, the 2^nd respondent had directed the petitioner to remit 35% of the amounts demanded for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, as a condition for grant of stay against recovery of the balance amount. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not comply with the said order dated 16.12.2013. In the writ petition, the prayer of the petitioner is essentially to dispense with the requirement of payment of amounts directed in Ext.P4 order and for a direction to the appellate authority to consider and pass orders in the appeal without insisting on any pre-deposit.

¶39

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

¶40

-2-

¶41

W.P.(C). No. 1346 of 2016

¶42

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find that pursuant to Ext.P4 order the petitioner was required to pay an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- towards the 35% of the demand for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 under the KVAT Act. The petitioner submits that he has made a payment of Rs.65,000/-. Taking note of the submission of counsel for the petitioner, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:

¶43

(i) If the petitioner pays the balance amount (1,80,000 - 65,000) of Rs.1,15,000 in two equal and successive monthly installments on or before 30.01.2016 and 20.02.2016., then the said payments together with payment already made by the petitioner shall be treated as in compliance with the directions in Ext.P4 order.

¶44

(ii) On the petitioner complying with the direction above regarding payments, the 2^nd respondent shall proceed to consider and pass orders on Exts.P2 and P2(a) appeals preferred by the petitioner, within two months from the date of receipt of the 2^nd installment directed above.

¶45

-3-

¶46

W.P.(C). No. 1346 of 2016

¶47

(iii)The recovery of the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Exts.P1 and P1(a) assessment orders, shall be kept in abeyance till such time as the orders are passed by the 2^nd respondent appellate authority as directed and communicated the same to the petitioner. It is made clear that if the petitioner defaults in any of the payments, he will not be entitled to the benefit of the stay granted in this judgment.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶50

das /14.01.2016

Sri.v.M.Tomy v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.v.M.Tomy 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saji.D Vs Alappuzha District Co-Operative Bank Limited

Deepak T.Pottackal Vs Assistant Commissioner

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

Tharun G. Kumar Vs the District Collector

Abraham Chacko Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

M/S.Steelmax Alloys Limited (Formerly Known as K.R.Alloys Ltd) Vs Assistant Commissioner (Assessment)