Dismissed

M/S. Zeens Food Processing India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer

Kerala HC9 Feb 2016WP(C)/2649/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a stay on recovery steps regarding a confirmed tax assessment while an appeal was pending before the appellate authority. The government pleader submitted the appeal was heard earlier than the petition claimed and the appellate authority had already passed an order. The High Court held the intended prayer could not be granted, advising the petitioner to challenge the final ap

What did the court decide?

Stay of recovery proceedings not granted; writ petition dismissed; remedy lies in challenging the appellate order.

M/S. Zeens Food Processing India Pvt. Ltd. Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/20TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 2649 of 2016 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M/S. ZEENS FOOD PROCESSING INDIA PVT. LTD, CW 33/3381/AR28 TOP LAND GRAND BAZAR, BELLARD ROAD, KANNUR-670 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MHAMMED ASHKAL. M.P. SANAH, NEAR SANGEETHA THEATRE, PAYYAMBALAM, KANNUR-670 001.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 1ST CIRCLE, KANNUR-670 001.

¶11

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

¶12

TAXES (APPEALS), INDIA CEMENTS BUILDING,

¶13

MINI BYPASS, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673 006

¶14

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR-670 001.

¶15

4. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, KANNUR-670 001.

¶16

5. VILLAGE OFFICER,

¶17

VILLAGE OFFICE-II, KANNUR-670 001.

¶18

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.RANJITH

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

mbr/

¶21

WP(C).No. 2649 of 2016 (E)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO. 32120570812/12-13 DATED 14/11/14 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXT.P2: COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXT.P3: COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION FILD BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE APPEAL BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXT.P4: COPY OF THE POSTING NOTICE DATED 16/9/15 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. W.P.(C).No.2649 Of 2016 ............................................................. Dated this the 9^th day of February, 2016

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is essentially that the respondents are initiating recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by an order of assessment, at a time when the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition before the 2^nd respondent. The prayer in the writ petition is essentially for a stay of recovery proceedings till such time as orders are passed by the 2^nd respondent appellate authority in the appeal which is stated to have been heard on 29.09.2015.

¶36

The learned Government Pleader on instructions would submit that the appeal was in fact heard on 19.11.2015, and thereafter, the 2^nd respondent has passed an order dated 29.01.2016 in the appeal. Taking note of the said submission of the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that, the prayer sought for in the present writ petition cannot be granted and the

¶37

-2-

¶38

W.P.(C). No. 2649 of 2016

¶39

remedy of the petitioner, if any, lies in challenging the order passed by the 2^nd respondent appellate authority in further proceedings under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. Thus, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue his remedy against the orders stated to have been passed by the appellate authority, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶40

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶41

mns/9.02.16

M/S. Zeens Food Processing India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Zeens Food Processing India Pvt. 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

Anil Kumar Vs Authorised Officer

Abu P.A Vs the Authorized Officer

M/S Offshore Infra Structures Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

Century Shipyard Pvt.Ltd Vs Ait & Commercial Tax Officer

Saritha K.L. Vs Authorised Officer, Trivandrum District Co-Op. Bank Ltd.

M/S.Bhima Jewellery Vs the Intelligence Inspector