Disposed

Suresh Chandran v. the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)

Kerala HC18 Mar 2016WP(C)/7959/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking challenge against a tax penalty order. Acknowledging the Government Pleader's submission that the lower court had correctly classified the petitioner's appeal as a revision petition, the Court directed the additional Deputy Commissioner to treat the matter accordingly and consider pending applications while staying recovery steps.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with directions to Deputy Commissioner Ernakulam to consider stay and condonation applications; recovery steps stayed pending.

Suresh Chandran Vs the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) — Service and Employment | 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 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/28TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 7959 of 2016 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SURESH CHANDRAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S. CADALAS, PALATHINKAL BUILDINGS, MAIN ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA- 682 301.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.EASWARAN,

¶9

SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM), SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE, SRI.P.SREEKUMAR (THOTTAKKATTUKARA), SMT.SOUMYA JAMES.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM, THEVARA, KOCHI- 682 015.

¶12

2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB), COMMERCIAL TAXES, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI -682 024.

¶13

3. COLLECTOR/AUTHORISED OFFICER, (INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KAKKANAD- 682 030), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶14

4. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, IST CIRCLE, TRIPUNITHURA -682 301.

¶15

ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED

¶16

5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM.

¶17

*** ADDL. R5 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER JUDGMENT DATED 18/03/2016.**

¶18

BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LILLY K.T.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

rs.

¶21

WP(C).No. 7959 of 2016 (T)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶24

P1:COPY OF ORDER DTD. 26/12/2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

P1(A):-COPY OF DEMAND DTD 26/12/2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

P2:COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DTD. 16TH FEBRUARY 2016 APPEAL NO. 520 OF 2016.

¶27

P3:COPY OF APPLICATION FOR STAY DTD. 16TH FEBRUARY 2016.

¶28

P4:COPY OF APPLICATION FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL DTD. 16TH FEBRUARY 2016.

¶29

P5:COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 16/02/2016 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT.

¶30

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶35

W.P.(C). No. 7959 of 2016

¶36

===================================================== Dated this the 18^th day of March, 2016

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Against Ext.P1 penalty order, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal, Ext.P3 stay petition and Ext.P4 application for condonation of delay before the 1^st respondent. On noticing that the petitioner has preferred appeals against Ext.P1 order along with the stay petition and delay condonation petition before the appellate authority under the KVAT Act, when in fact against Ext.P1 penalty order, he ought to have preferred a revision petition together with stay petitions and delay condonation petitions before the revision authority, namely the Deputy Commissioner, Ernakulam, the learned Government Pleader took time to get instructions as to whether the appeals could be numbered as revision petitions and disposed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ernakulam. When the matter was called up today, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader on instructions, that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has since been numbered as a revision petition and the Deputy Commissioner, Ernakulam will consider the stay application and delay condonation application filed by the petitioner on 12.04.2016. Taking note of the said submission of the learned Government Pleader on instructions, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:

¶39

W.P.(C). No. 7959 of 2016

¶40

-2-

¶41

(i) The Deputy Commissioner, Ernakulam is suo motu impleaded in the writ petition as the additional 5^th respondent and the learned Government Pleader takes notice for the additional 5^th respondent.

¶42

(ii) The additional 5^th respondent shall consider and pass orders on the delay condonation application and the stay application filed alongwith the revision petition, on 12.04.2016, after hearing the petitioner.

¶43

(iii) Recovery steps pursuant to Ext.P5 demand notice, shall be kept in abeyance, till such time as orders are passed by the additional 5^th respondent as directed and communicates the same to the petitioner.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶46

das /18.03.2016

Suresh Chandran v. the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Chandran v. the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)

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

Anitha P.P. Vs State of Kerala

A.Q.Muslim Vs the Vijaya Bank

N.H.Sidhik Vs the Authorised Officer, Central Bank of India

Abdul Sathar Vs the Regional Transport Officer

S. Mohanan Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Neelammariyil Agencies Vs State Bank of Travancore