Dismissed

R.Vijayan v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Kerala HC6 Jul 2017WA/1404/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A full bench of the Kerala High Court dismissed this writ appeal challenging a single judge order that reduced the remittance requirement for a tax stay. The court declined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower court but granted an extension for depositing the amount.

What did the court decide?

Time for remittance extended; half to be deposited by late August 2017, remaining half by late September 2017.

R.Vijayan Vs the Commercial Tax Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2017/15TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶6

W.A.No.1404 of 2017 IN WP(C)15850/2017

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 15850/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 29-05-2017

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶9

R.VIJAYAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.VIJAYAKRISHNA JEWELLERS, NEAR K.S.R.T.C BUS STAND, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN: 691 305.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SR.) SRI.BOBBY JOHN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER PUNALUR, KOLLAM 691 305.

¶13

THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER SQUAD NO.II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM AT KOTTARAKKARA, PIN: 691 506.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM 691 506.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶16

THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLLAM 691 001.

¶17

R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No.1404 of 2017

¶20

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶21

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6^th day of July, 2017

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Antony Dominic, J.

¶24

Heard the Senior Counsel for the appellant and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶25

This appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)15850/17. The said writ petition was filed by the appellant seeking to challenge Ext.P24 order passed by the third respondent, whereby stay of recovery of tax and interest due under Ext.P16 order of assessment was granted subject to the appellant remitting 25% of the amount due. In the judgment under appeal, while upholding the order of the Appellate Authority, the learned Single Judge reduced the amount to be remitted from 25% to 15%. It is aggrieved by this judgment, this appeal is filed.

¶26

Despite the persuasive submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, we are not inclined to interfere with

¶27

the judgment under appeal. This is primarily for the reason that a reading of Ext.P24 order show that the Appellate Authority has given its reasons for its conclusion that the appellant had made out a prima

¶28

W.A.No.1404 of 2017 : 2 :

¶29

facie case. The order also shows that it was on that finding that the Appellate Authority has exercised its discretionary power and ordered remittance of 25% of the amount due as condition for stay. The judgment under appeal also shows that valid considerations have

¶30

weighed with the learned Single Judge for confirming the order on merits and reducing the quantum to 15%.

¶31

Therefore, we are decline to interfere with the judgment under appeal and the appeal will stand dismissed.

¶32

However, taking note of the financial constraints that are

¶33

now highlighted by the learned Senior Counsel, we extend the time for remittance of the amount ordered by the learned Single Judge and order that half of the amount shall be deposited by the appellant in the last week of August, 2017 and the remaining half, in the last week of September, 2017.

¶34

Writ appeal is dismissed.

¶35

sd/-

¶36

ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE

¶37

sd/-

¶38

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

¶39

jes

R.Vijayan v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Vijayan v. the Commercial Tax Officer

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

M/S.Dinesh Textiles Vs State of Kerala

Supra Agencies Vs State of Kerala

Vimala Jyothi Seva Sangham Vs State of Kerala

The Commissioner of Income Tax,Cochin Vs Shri.Sudhir Gopi

Sony a Vs Superintendent of Police

Rinush P Pillai Vs State of Kerala