Dismissed

C. Yousaph, Proprietor, Nanminda Wood Industries v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Apr 2016WP(C)/2291/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and decide the petitioner's application for the refund of tax amounts paid during adjudication proceedings which were resolved in the petitioner's favour. The court recorded the respondent's submission regarding a four-month timeline and directed disposal of the petition accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed by directing the 2nd respondent to pass orders on Ext.P7 request for refund on or before 04.07.2016.

C. Yousaph, Proprietor, Nanminda Wood Industries Vs… — 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

FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2016/12TH CHAITHRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 2291 of 2016 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

C. YOUSAPH, PROPRIETOR, NANMINDA WOOD INDUSTRIES 8/550, NANMINDA-14, CALICUT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SMT.K.LATHA SMT.M.K.HAJARA SRI.C.RAMACHANDRAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, NIRMAL ARCADE, KOZHIKODE-673001.

¶12

3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

¶13

R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. R. RANJITH

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

...2/-

¶17

WP(C).No. 2291 of 2016 (J)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶20

EXT. P1 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER NO. TCR 30A/2011-2012 DATED 28.06.2012 ISSUED BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.III, COMMERCIAL TAXES, CALICUT ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE DATED 28.06.2012.

¶21

EXT. P2 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN W.A. NO.2139/2012 DATED 07.12.2012.

¶22

EXT. P3 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), KOZHIKODE TO THE PETITIONER DATED 29.05.2013.

¶23

EXT. P4 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN T.A(VAT)1315/2013, 1316/2013 AND 1317/2013 ISSUED BY THE KERALA VALUE ADDED ADDITIONAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD TO THE PETITIONER DATED 30.08.2014.

¶24

EXT. P5 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENTS AND AFFIDAVITS OF THE TIMBER MERCHANTS WHO ENTRUSTED WOODS FOR SAWING WITH THE PETITIONER SAW MILL.

¶25

EXT. P6 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27.11.2015 FILED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND THE REPLY INFORMATION LETTER DATED RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER DATED 15.12.2015

¶26

EXT. P7 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶32

............................................................. W.P.(C).No.2291 of 2016

¶33

............................................................. Dated this the 1^st day of April, 2016

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

The limited prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 letter preferred by the petitioner seeking refund of amounts that were paid by way of tax during the pendency of adjudication proceedings that were ultimately resolved in favour of the petitioner.

¶36

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

¶37

The learned Government Pleader on instructions would submit that the 2^nd respondent can pass orders on Ext.P7 letter within a period of four months from today. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed by directing the 2^nd respondent to pass orders on Ext.P7 request for refund on or before 04.07.2016.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

mns/1.4.16

C. Yousaph, Proprietor, Nanminda Wood Industries v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. Yousaph, Proprietor, Nanminda Wood Industries v. State of Kerala

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

State Bank of India Vs M/S.Kinship Services(India)Pvt.Ltd.

Anwar E. Vs Canara Bank, Sme Branch, Kullappully

Ansu Joseph Vs Federal Bank

V.D.Joseph Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Sreedevi Amma Vs Authorised Officer

World Wide Iron and Steels (P) Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner