Dismissed

M.v.Ibrahim v. the Assistant Commissioner

Kerala HC29 Jun 2016WP(C)/20883/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged a demand notice under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The Court dismissed the petition but stayed recovery proceedings for two weeks pending the petitioner's challenge to the underlying modified order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed reserving right to challenge modified order; recovery proceedings stayed for two weeks.

M.v.Ibrahim Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/8TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 20883 of 2016 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M.V.IBRAHIM,

¶8

ARAFA TRADERS, HILL PRODUCE DEALER, P.O.SIVAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

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

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, KANNUR-670 002.

¶12

2. TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), THALASSERY, KANNUR-670 002.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY K.T.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 20883 of 2016 (I)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

P1: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2002-03 DTD.20.4.2004 (KGST ACT).

¶20

P2: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2002-03 DTD.20.4.2004. (CST ACT)

¶21

P3: COPY OF THE MODIFIED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2002-03 UNDER THE CST ACT DTD.28.8.2006.

¶22

P4: COPY OF THE MODIFIED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2002-03 UNDER THE KGST ACT ALONG WITH STATEMENT DTD.7.7.2006.

¶23

P5: COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DTD.3.6.2008.

¶24

P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.10.9.2008.

¶25

P7: COPY OF THE REQUEST FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD.12.1.2011.

¶26

P8: COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.9.5.2016.

¶27

P9: COPY OF THE REQUEST FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD.10.6.2016.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶34

W.P.(C).No.20883 of 2016

¶35

----------------------------------- Dated this the 29^th day of June, 2016

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

The petitioner challenges Ext.P8 demand notice issued under Section 7 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act on the ground that the demand has been made without taking into consideration the modified order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as per Ext.P5 dated 03.06.2008.

¶38

The learned Government Pleader on instructions would submit that modified order has already been passed as early as on 16.11.2013 and the revenue recovery proceedings has been initiated pursuant to the said modified order itself.

¶39

Having regard to the aforesaid submission, I don't think that the petitioner is entitled for any relief in the present writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is closed reserving right of the petitioner to challenge the modified order in accordance with law. However, two weeks time is granted to the petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law and until such time, the recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.

¶42

M.v.Ibrahim v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.v.Ibrahim v. the Assistant Commissioner

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. F.M. Marketing Vs Intelligence Officer

M/S.Suffar Rubbers Vs Deputy Chief Engineer

Sakunthala Vs K.S.E.B

Smt.Vakkachan Mary Vs Sri.Amit Meena I a S

Annakutty Antony Vs the District Collector Kottayam

P.Muhammed Vs Authorised Officer