Allowed

P.Pankajakashan v. the Deputy Tahsildar (Rr)

Kerala HC10 Jul 2018WP(C)/20566/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a bus operator, challenged a tax demand notice while seeking a commission to file a statutory appeal against an impugned order. Holding that limitation runs from the date of knowledge due to lack of service, the court allowed the appeal against delay and directed the authority to hear the matter on merits.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is permitted to file a statutory appeal within two weeks, to be heard without reference to the limitation period delay.

P.Pankajakashan Vs the Deputy Tahsildar (Rr) — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 20566 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

P.PANKAJAKASHAN,

¶8

AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.SANKARA MENON, RESIDING AT "SRISAILAM", LAKKADI, MANGALAM P.O., OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679301.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN

¶10

SRI.PRAVEEN.H.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679101.

¶13

THE VILLAGE OFFICER, LAKKADI PERUR-I VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679101.

¶14

JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679101.

¶15

MR.SUMESH KUMAR, S/O.KUMARAN, KOROTH HOUSE, MUTHUVATTOOR, VIA. GURUVAYOOR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680506.

¶16

THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶17

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OTTAPALAM-679101.

¶18

ADDNL RESPONDENT IMPLEADED

¶19

DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL ZONE-1, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR - 68

¶20

ADDNL. RESPONDENT IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 10.07.2018 IN I.A. NO.12219/2018

¶21

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C).No. 20566 of 2018 (U)

¶24

¶25

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶26

EXHIBIT P1-	TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-35B-5766.
EXHIBIT P2-	TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 03/05/2014 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-35B-5766.
EXHIBIT P3-	TRUE COPY OF THE FIR REGISTERED IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.1251 OF 2015 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION.
EXHIBIT P4-	TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OTTAPALAM, BEFORE THE JFCM COURT, OTTAPALAM AS C.C.1248/2016.
EXHIBIT P5-	TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT OFFICE RELATING TO BUS NO.KL-35B-5766.
EXHIBIT P6-	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT AGAINST THE EXHIBIT P5 DEMAND MADE AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7-	TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.28/2003 DATED 17/07/2003 ISSUED BY THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER.
EXHIBIT P8-	TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 19/01/2018 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE RR ACT DEMAND A SUM OF RS.6,22,912/- ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9-	TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 19/01/2018 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE RR ACT DEMAND A SUM OF RS.6,22,912/- ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10-	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 01/02/2018 MADE IN W.P(C)NO.3520/2018.
EXHIBIT P11-	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/03/2018 SIGNED ON 24/03/2018 AND DELIVERED TO THE PETITIONER ON 24/03/2018 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12-	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER MADE ON W.P.(C)NO.11233/2017 DATED 11/04/2017.

¶27

JJJ

¶28

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶29

-----------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 20566 of 2018 (U)

¶30

Dated: 10^th July, 2018

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

The petitioner, a contract carriage operator, sold his bus to the 4th respondent on 13.05.2014. He pleads that he handed over the vehicle to the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent, according to the petitioner, has not paid the vehicle tax dues; instead, he took away the vehicle to an unknown destination. Under those circumstances, the petitioner got a crime registered against the 4th respondent in Crime No. 1251 of 2015 of Ottapalam Police Station.

¶33

In the meanwhile, the respondent authority served on the petitioner a notice, dated 19.01.2018, demanding Rs.6,22,912/- as tax arrears for the vehicle he had sold.

¶34

W.P.(C) No. 20566/2018

¶35

-2-

¶36

Aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.3520 of 2018, which this Court disposed of on 01.02.2018. The Court directed the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's Ext.P7 objection. Eventually, the authority considered that objection and passed orders.

¶37

The petitioner contends that the 3rd respondent's order, i.e., Ext.P11, had never been served on him. Later, he went to the 3rd respondent's office and collected it only on 11.06.2018. Since the order seems to have been passed on 22.03.2018, the petitioner could not take recourse to statutory appeal, because it should have been filed within 30 days from the date of the order. So he has filed this writ petition.

¶38

The learned counsel on either side advanced their

¶39

arguments.

¶40

W.P.(C) No. 20566/2018

¶41

-3-

¶42

The petitioner's counsel, in the end, has submitted that if this Court could condone the delay and direct the additional 7th respondent to consider the appeal on merits, the petitioner will prefer an appeal.

¶43

It is undeniable as a legal preposition that limitation runs either from the date of actual service of notice or from the date of knowledge, if notice is not served. In this case, the petitioner has contended that the order (Ext.P11) had not been served on him. And it has not been seriously disputed by the respondent authorities.

¶44

Under these circumstances, I reckon that the appeal is eminently maintainable. From the date of knowledge, the petitioner has been pursuing bona fide the writ remedy. So it is equitable to hold that the appeal needs to be considered without reference to the delay.

¶45

W.P.(C) No. 20566/2018

¶46

-4-

¶47

Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition holding that the petitioner can, within two weeks from the date of this judgment, file a statutory appeal before the additional 7th respondent. In that event the appellate authority will hear the matter without reference to the delay.

¶48

Sd/DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

¶49

jjj 11/07/2018

P.Pankajakashan v. the Deputy Tahsildar (Rr)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Pankajakashan v. the Deputy Tahsildar (Rr)

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

Musthafa Vs Assistant Commissioner of Customs

Sonu R Vs Assistant Engineer

Hakkim S. Vs the Branch Manager, the Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd.

Julie K.Varghese Vs Pathanamthitta District Co-Operative Bank, Represented by It'S General Manager

M/S. Selfshine Polymers India Private Vs State of Kerlaa

George Mathew Vs Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.