Disposed

Jeevesh v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Kerala HC27 May 2016WP(C)/18487/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this petition, the Kerala High Court declined to decide the merits of the challenge to a tax assessment order. During the pendency of an appeal filed by the petitioner, the respondent authorities sought to recover the tax demand. The court held it unnecessary to examine the merits and ordered the appellate authority to decide the stay petition within one month, while directing that the recovery

What did the court decide?

The 2nd respondent to consider the stay petition within one month and keep the recovery demand in Ext.P4 in abeyance.

Jeevesh Vs the Commercial Tax Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2016/6TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 18487 of 2016 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

SRI. JEEVESH J.,

¶8

PROPRIETOR OF M/S. SCHARADAR AMALAGAMATE, VIII/257 C, SIGNAL JUNCTION, MARKET POST, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR

¶10

SRI.SREEJITH R. NAIR KUM.SOUMYA PRAKASH KUM.MEKHALA M. BENNY

¶11

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶12

1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

¶13

I CIRCLE, KALAMASSERY – 683104.

¶14

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERNAKULAM – 682015.

¶15

3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM – 682030.

¶16

4. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (TAXES), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695001.

¶17

R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. LILLY K.T.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

...2/-

¶21

WP(C).No. 18487 of 2016 (I)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶24

EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15.01.2016 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH NOTICE DT. 04.03.2016 EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXT. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 10.05.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶32

------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.18487 of 2016

¶33

Dated this the 27^th day of May, 2016

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

Petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal before the 2^nd respondent and along with the appeal, petitioner has also filed Ext.P3 application for stay. It is submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, steps are being taken by the respondent authorities for recovering the amount in terms of Ext.P4.

¶36

Having regard to the fact that an appeal is pending before the competent authority, I do not think it necessary to consider the matter on merits. Suffice to say that the appellate authority has to consider the stay petition on merits within a specified time and in the meantime, the recovery can be kept in abeyance.

¶37

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as under:

¶38

(i) The 2^nd respondent shall consider the stay petition filed along with the appeal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶39

(ii) In the meantime, the demand made in terms of Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.

¶42

Jeevesh v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeevesh 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

C H Ali Vs the Federal Bank Limited

B. Sarathchandran Vs Davis a. Abraham

Bindu L. Vs Thiruvananthapuram Distirct Co-Operative Bank

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs the Recovery Officer

Kitco Ltd. Vs K.S.E.B

P a Beefathu Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Limited