Disposed

Manohar.M v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Oct 2016WP(C)/33092/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged revenue recovery proceedings. Court held that since assessment order is appealable, challenge to demand is premature. However, granting indulgence, court kept demand notice in abeyance for 7 days to enable filing of appeal against assessment order.

What did the court decide?

Ext. P7 (Demand Notice) kept in abeyance for seven days to enable petitioner to prefer appeal against assessment order.

Manohar.M Vs State of Kerala — 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

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/25TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 33092 of 2016 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

MANOHAR M. AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.MARIMUTHU, SOUTH DIVISION, CHOKANAD ESTATE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, KDH VILLAGE, MUNNAR POST - 685 612, (PROPRIETOR, MANO CHICKEN, TATA TEA BUILDING, X/102,FISH MARKET, X MUNNAR 685 612)

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, COMMERCIAL TAXES, DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM 695 001.

¶11

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, IDUKKI AT KATTAPPANA 685 652.

¶12

3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER OFFICE OF THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI 685 851.

¶13

4. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER COMMERCIAL TAXES, SQUAD NO.V., IDUKKI , RAJAKAD 685 855.

¶14

R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rvs.

¶17

WP(C).No. 33092 of 2016 (J)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.	P1	TRUE PETI SAMI	COPY OF THE MEMBERSHIP CERTIFICATE OF THE TIONER IN KERALA STATE VYAPARI VYAVASAYI THI.
EXT.	P2	TRUE THE	COPY OF THE SHOP INSPECTION RECEIPT ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.	P3	TRUE NO.1	COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION IN FORM A ISSUED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT.
EXT.	P4	TRUE RS.	COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF TAX 5000/- ON 17.9.2015.
EXT.	P4A	TRUE RS.4	COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF TAX 000/- ON 8.12.2015.
EXT.	P4B	TRUE RS.	COY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF TAX 6000/- ON 6.1.2016.
EXT.	P5	TRUE	COPY OF THE TAX INVOICE DATED 15.6.2016.
EXT.	P6	TRUE DATE THE	COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.A1/961/2015 D 10.3.2016 AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ATTAHCED TO SAME.
EXT.	P7	TRUE ISSU	COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 29.6.2016 ED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

rvs.

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶27

=============== W.P. (C) No. 33092 of 2016

¶28

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

¶29

Dated this, the 17^th day of October, 2016

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

Petitioner challenges Ext.P7 revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the revenue authorities pursuant to Ext.P6 order of assessment passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Devikulam. Having regard to the fact that Ext.P6 order is appealable, I do not think that petitioner can challenge the demand made in terms of Ext.P7 without challenging the assessment order.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a week's time to prefer the appeal. Even now, the period of filing the appeal has already expired and the remedy of the petitioner is only to challenge Ext.P6 by filing an appeal with a petition to condone delay. However, taking into account the plight of the petitioner, I am of the view that some indulgence can be shown as far as the demand is concerned.

¶33

Accordingly, Ext.P7 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of seven days to enable the petitioner to prefer appeal and obtain

¶34

W.P(C) No.33092/16

¶35

-:2:-

¶36

necessary orders from the appellate authority.

¶37

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶40

Rp17/10/2016

¶41

//True Copy//

¶42

P.S to Judge

Manohar.M v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohar.M 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

Hamsa Vs the Trichur Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd.

Engineers Training Centre Vs Univeristy Grants Commission

Swarnan. T Vs South Indian Bank

Sreedharan Nair Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Gala Icecreams Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)

M/S. Richo Impex (P) Ltd. Vs the Commercial Tax OFFICER-1