Dismissed

M/S. F.M. Marketing v. Intelligence Officer

Kerala HC28 Jun 2016WP(C)/21707/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed a writ petition challenging a notice under the Kerala VAT Act issued pursuant to a departmental clarification. Relying on an existing interim stay order, the court held that while recovery was stayed, further investigation proceedings could continue, rendering an additional stay unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the notice was dismissed as no further stay was necessary given the existing interim order.

M/S. F.M. Marketing Vs Intelligence Officer — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/7TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 21707 of 2016 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

M/S. F.M. MARKETING

¶8

MUBAS BUILDING, IOC ROAD, MUNNILAMPADAM, PUTTEKKAD P.O., FEROKE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REP. BY MOHAMMED KUTTY, MANAGING PARTNER.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAGHUNATH

¶10

SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS :

¶12

INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB) COMMERCIAL TAXES, CIVIL STATION ANNEXE, ALAPUZHA - 688 000

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. LILLY K.T.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 21707 of 2016 (K)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶18

EXT.P1 : PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DT. 01-02-2016 PASSED IN

¶19

WPC NO. 33907/15.

¶20

EXT.P2 : PHOTOCOPY OF ANNUAL RETURN FOR 2013.14

¶21

EXT.P3 : PHOTOCOPY OF ANNUAL RETURN FOR 2014.15.

¶22

EXT.P4 : PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE U/S 67[1] OF THE ACT DT. 17-06-2016 FOR 2013-14.

¶23

EXT.P5 : PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE U/S 67[1] OF THE ACT DT. 17-06-2016 FOR 2014-15.

¶24

EXT.P6 : CLARIFICATION NO. C3/34789/15/CT DT. 09-03-2016.

¶25

EXT.P7 : PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER IN OTA NO. 7/2016 DT. 19-05-2016.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J

¶31

- - - - W.P.(C) No. 21707 of 2016

¶32

- - - - Dated this the 28^th day of June, 2016

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Petitioner challenges Ext.P5 by which a notice had been

¶35

issued under Section 67(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. It is stated that the above notice had been issued pursuant to the clarification issued by the Department of Commercial Taxes as per Ext.P6 dated 09.03.2016. It is further stated that Ext.P6 order is under challenge in OTA No.7/16 and Division Bench of this Court as per interim order dated 19.05.2016 had stayed recovery of amounts pursuant to the impugned orders. However, it was observed that the proceedings pursuant to interim order can continue.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of

¶37

the fact that the validity of Ext.P6 is pending adjudication before this Court, further proceedings should not continue.

¶38

Learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, placing reliance on the interim order passed by this Court in OTA 7/2016, submits that this court did not stop the proceedings, only the recovery had been stayed.

¶39

-:2:-

¶40

WPC 21707/16

¶41

In the light of Ext.P7 order in OTA 7/2016, I do not think that this Court will be justified in staying further proceedings pursuant to notice Ext.P5 dated 17.06.2016. It shall be open for the Intelligence Officer to continue the proceedings.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for stay of recovery on final orders. The question of recovery arises only if final orders are passed. At that stage, it shall be open for the petitioner to seek stay of recovery if at all it is necessary.

¶43

In such circumstances I do not think it necessary to stay recovery pursuant to Ext.P5 notice. Hence, the writ petition is

¶44

dismissed.

¶45

A.M. Shaffique Judge

¶46

ttb/28/06

M/S. F.M. Marketing v. Intelligence Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. F.M. Marketing v. Intelligence 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

Marappa Gounder Vs K.S.E.B.

Wilfred Zacharia Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Sabunath Vs the Additional District Magistrate, Kott

M/S.Suffar Rubbers Vs Deputy Chief Engineer

Sakunthala Vs K.S.E.B

M/S Integral Traders Vs the Commissioner of Customs