Remanded

M/S.Modern Sanitary v. the Assistant Commissioner (Assmt.) - 11

Kerala HC28 Oct 2016WP(C)/34642/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Court held that pending revenue appeals obviated the need for merits regarding the main petition. The Court directed the second respondent to consider stay petitions within one month and kept the tax demand in abeyance until appellate authority decides.

What did the court decide?

The 2nd respondent shall consider the stay petitions within one month; recovery demanded pursuant to assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance.

M/S.Modern Sanitary Vs the Assistant Commissioner (Assmt.) - 11 — 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

FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/6TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 34642 of 2016 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M/S.MODERN SANITARY, CHETTUPUZHA BUILDING, KURUPPAM ROAD, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SEBASTIAN MATHEW.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.J.ABRAHAM SRI.NIKHIL JOHN SRI.CHERIAN PUNNOOSE

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT.)- II, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR-680 004.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682 015.

¶12

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

mbr/

¶15

WP(C).No. 34642 of 2016 (E)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' --------------	EXHIBITS: ---------
EXHIBIT P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32080710565/2010-11 DATED 9.9.2016.
EXHIBIT P1(A):	TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32080710565/2013-14 DATED 17.9.2016.
EXHIBIT P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN FORM NO.29 DATED 24.9.2016 FOR THE YEAR 2010-11.
EXHIBIT P2(A):	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN FORM NO.29 DATED 19.10.2016 FOR THE YEAR 2013-14.
EXHIBIT P3:	A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO.30 STAY PETITION DATED 24.9.2016 FOR THE YEAR 2010-11.
EXHIBIT P3(A):	TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO.30 STAY PETITION DATED 19.10.2016 FOR THE YEAR 2013-14.
RESPONDENT(S)' --------------	EXHIBITS: NIL ---------
	//TRUE COPY//

¶18

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶19

mbr/

¶20

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.34642 of 2016

¶21

Dated this the 28^th day of October 2016

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Petitioner has filed Exts.P2 and P2(a) appeals as well as Exts.P3 and P3(a) applications for stay before the 2^nd respondent. It is submitted that during the pendency of the appeals, steps are being taken by the respondent authorities for recovering the amount demanded pursuant to Exts.P1 and P1(a) orders.

¶24

Having regard to the fact that appeals are pending before the competent authority, I do not think it necessary to consider the matter on merits. Suffice to say that the appellate authority has to consider the stay petitions on merits within a specified time and in the meantime, recovery can be kept in abeyance.

¶25

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as under: i) The 2^nd respondent shall consider Exts.P3 and P3(a) stay petitions filed along with the appeals within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶26

W.P.C.No.34642/2016

¶27

¶28

ii) In the meantime, the demand made pursuant to

¶29

Exts.P1 and P1(a) orders shall be kept in abeyance.

¶30

(sd/-)

¶31

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶32

jsr

M/S.Modern Sanitary v. the Assistant Commissioner (Assmt.) - 11

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Modern Sanitary v. the Assistant Commissioner (Assmt.) - 11

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

Anusha M.K. Vs University of Calicut

Kamalamma Vs the District Collector

Shine Ceramics Vs State of Kerala

Smt. Laila Mathew Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S.Modern Electricals Vs the Assistant Commissioner (Assmt)

M/S.Royal Enfield Vs the Intelligence Inspector