Partly allowed

Eddy Current Controls (India ) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer

Kerala HC7 Jul 2016WP(C)/22737/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court modified a rectified stay order in a commercial tax matter. Relying on an initial direction requiring 30% deposit, the Court ordered that the petitioner must pay only 30% of the balance amount as per the order to avail the stay.

What did the court decide?

Stay granted on condition of petitioner paying 30% of the balance amount stated in the order within fifteen days.

Eddy Current Controls (India ) Ltd. Vs Commercial Tax… — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2016/16TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 22737 of 2016 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

EDDY CURRENT CONTROLS (INDIA ) LTD., POTTA, CHALAKKUDY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR- M.D.JOSE.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CHALAKKUDY-680 307.

¶11

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶12

3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, IRINJALAKUDA-680 121.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LILLY.K.T

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Msd.

¶16

WP(C).No. 22737 of 2016 (N)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶19

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010(CST) DATED 18.02.2014.

¶20

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011(CST) DATED 18.02.2014.

¶21

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012(CST) DATED 14.03.2014.

¶22

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010(CST) DATED 22.03.2014.

¶23

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011(CST) DATED 22.03.2014.

¶24

P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012(CST) DATED 22.03.2014.

¶25

P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 05.05.2014.

¶26

P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF STAY PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07.08.2014.

¶27

P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.23409/2014 DATED 03.09.2014.

¶28

P10 TRUE COPY OF THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF STAY PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.05.2016.

¶29

P11 TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT(AY-2009-2010) DATED 18.06.2016.

¶30

P12 TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT(AY-2010-2011) DATED 17.06.2016.

¶31

P13 TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT(AY-2011-2012) DATED 17.06.2016.

¶32

P14 TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFIED STAY ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.06.2016.

¶33

WP(C).No. 22737 of 2016 (N)

¶34

P15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C).NO.20182/2014 DATED 14.08.2014.

¶35

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶41

=============== W.P. (C) No. 22737 of 2016

¶42

==================

¶43

Dated this, the 7^th day of July, 2016

¶44

J U D G M E N T

¶45

Petitioner challenges Ext.P14 by which rectification order had been passed with reference to the stay granted in terms of Ext.P10.

¶46

The contention urged by the petitioner is that with reference to assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, petitioner had preferred appeals. Initially, stay was granted on condition of the petitioner remitting 30% of the amount. Petitioner challenged the same by filing a writ petition before this Court inter alia contending that various C forms made available could not be produced before the appellate authority and therefore appropriate direction was not made in that regard. A modified order was passed by the appellate authority by which the petitioner was directed to deposit 90,000/, 4,52,000/- and `1,09,000/- respectively for the aforesaid years. Finding that there was a mistake in the calculation, petitioner submitted Exts.P11 to P13 rectification petitions and after correcting the mistakes, rectification order had been passed by which the

¶47

W.P(C) No.22737/16

¶48

-:2:-

¶49

balance due has been worked out at 38,201/-, 51,767/- and `1,15,108/-. As a condition for stay, petitioner was asked to pay the said amount with interest. According to the petitioner, the direction to pay the full amount is unsustainable especially on account of the fact that the petitioner is entitled for refund of substantial amount.

¶50

Having regard to the fact that initially direction was issued only to pay 30% of the demand, it would be appropriate that the petitioner should be permitted to pay only 30% of the total amount payable as per Ext.P14. Taking into consideration the aforesaid factual situation, Ext.P14 is modified to the following extent:

¶51

That stay is granted for recovery of amount for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 on condition of the petitioner paying 30% of the amount as stated in Ext.P14 order within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶52

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶53

Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶54

Rp7/07/2016 //True Copy//

¶55

P.S to Judge

Eddy Current Controls (India ) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eddy Current Controls (India ) Ltd. v. 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

Anilkumar Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Mathew Varghese Vs the Chief Manager (Authorized Officer)

Rabia Vs Joint Registrar

P.A. Ninas Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

The Association of Planters of Kerala Vs State of Kerala and Others

Sr. Alphonse Maria Cmc Vs the Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.