Disposed

M/S.Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jan 2016WP(C)/997/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging recovery steps initiated based on a prior penalty order. It directed the third respondent to decide the petitioner's pending stay application within a month and ordered that recovery proceedings remain in abeyance until such decision is communicated.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the 3rd respondent to decide the stay petition in one month and to keep recovery steps in abeyance till then.

M/S.Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala — 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 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/22ND POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 997 of 2016 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

M/S. PANASONIC INDIA PVT. LTD., DOOR NO.37/2022, C.D, G & H SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE ROAD, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KADAVANTHARA COCHIN-682 020

¶8

REPRESENTED BY IT'S BRANCH MANAGER MR. ARUN K.R.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.K.LATHA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIATE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER SQUAD NO.II OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INT.) COMMERCIAL TAXES THEVARA, ERNAKULAM-682015.

¶13

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,

¶14

SALES TAX OFFICE COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM-682 015.

¶15

4. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (RR DIVISION) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030.

¶16

R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. R. RANJITH

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

...2/-

¶20

WP(C).No. 997 of 2016 (Y)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶23

EXHIBIT P1: THE TRUE COPY OF SHOP INSPECTION REPORT NO.29265 DATED 29.4.2010 ISSUED BY THE INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR, SQUAD NO.V, MATTANCHERRY TO THE PETITIONER.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY NOTICE U/S 44(8) OF THE KVAT ACT 2003 DATED 8.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶25

EXHIBIT P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE PENALTY NOTICE FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015.

¶26

EXHIBIT P3A: THE TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED IST DAY OF MAY 2009.

¶27

EXHIBIT P3B: THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION LETTER OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY DATED 18.5.2009.

¶28

EXHIBIT P4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER NO.ISE-II/I/2010 U/S 484 (8) OF THE KVAT ACT DATED 26.12.2015 .

¶29

EXHIBIT P5: THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC NO.125 OF 2016 DATED 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016.

¶30

EXHIBIT P6: WITH THE TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION IN FORM NO.29 AND THE GROUNDS OF REVISION.

¶31

EXHIBIT P7: THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM 12 DATED 26.12.2015 BASED ON THE P4 PENALTY ORDER.

¶32

EXHIBIT P8: COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE P6 REVISION PETITION.

¶33

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶38

¶39

W.P.(C) No.997 of 2016

¶40

¶41

Dated this the 12^th day of January 2016

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

Against Ext. P4 penalty order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P6 revision petition and Ext.P8 stay petition before the 3^rd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that even prior to considering the stay petition, recovery steps are sought to be pursued for recovery of the amounts confirmed by Ext. P4 penalty order.

¶44

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

¶45

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the

¶46

case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:

¶47

i) The 3^rd respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 stay petition within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner.

¶48

W.P.(c).No.997 of 2015

¶49

: 2 :

¶50

ii) Recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P4 penalty order shall be kept in abeyance till orders are passed by the 3^rd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner.

¶51

Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶52

sm/

M/S.Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Venukumar K. Vs State Bank of India

M/S.Neha Leathers Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Zakir M.A. Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

M/S. Global Granites Vs the Authorized Officer, South Indian Bank Ltd.

Shajahan M S Vs State Bank of Travancore

M.Narayanan Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes