Disposed

M/S. K.H. Floor Gallery (P) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Inspector, Walayar

Kerala HC20 Dec 2018WP(C)/9600/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a company whose registration was cancelled and later restored, sought return of a security deposit. Respondents could not trace files due to lapse of time. Court directed authorities to consider claim if petitioner submits records.

What did the court decide?

If petitioner places relevant records before the second respondent, he will consider the claim for refund expeditiously.

M/S. K.H. Floor Gallery (P) Ltd. Vs Sales Tax… — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 9600 of 2014

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

M/S. K.H. FLOOR GALLERY (P) LTD. PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BYK.H.ABDUL GAFOOR, MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 SALES TAX INSPECTOR, WALAYAR SALES TAX CHECK POST

¶11

2 THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER ENQUIRY SALES TAX COMPLEX, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶12

3 COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER ADMINISTRATION COMMERCIAL TAX CHECK POST, WALAYAR -678 624.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SMT.M.M.JASMINE, GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The first respondent collected from the petitioner the security deposit

¶18

of `1,54,424/- in 2001. Later, the petitioner had its registration cancelled.

¶19

WPC No.9600 of 2014 2

¶20

On its appeal, the Tribunal through Ext.P3 order set aside the cancellation. Under these circumstances, seeking return of the security deposit, the petitioner has applied to the authorities. Despite the lapse of many years, the second respondent has so far not considered the petitioner's claim for refund. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed this writ petition in 2014.

¶21

Now, on instructions, the learned Government Pleader informs

¶22

the Court that given the lapse of time, despite their best efforts, the authorities could not trace the files. If the petitioner could produce the relevant records, the second respondent will consider the petitioner's request for refund. For this proposal, the petitioner's counsel agrees.

¶23

Under these circumstances, without adverting to the merits, I dispose of the writ petition holding that if the petitioner places the relevant records before the second respondent, he will consider the petitioner's claim for refund expeditiously.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

WPC No.9600 of 2014 3

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶30

EXHIBIT P1	EXT.P-1: COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2	EXT.P-2: COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3	EXT.P-3: COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4	EXT.P-4: COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5	EXT.P-5: COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6	EXT.P-6: COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7	EXT.P-7: COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8	EXT.P-8: COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P9	EXT.P-9: COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P10	EXT.P-10: COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P11	EXT.P-11: COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD.
EXHIBIT P12	EXT.P-12: COPY OF REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P13	EXT.P-13: COPY OF JUDGEMENT IN WPC NO.37246/2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P14	EXT.P-14: COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P15 Css/	EXT.P-15: COPY OF LETTER SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

M/S. K.H. Floor Gallery (P) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Inspector, Walayar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. K.H. Floor Gallery (P) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Inspector, Walayar

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

Harbour Fisheries Vs Cochin Corporation

C.Yousaph Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Elite Tourist Home Vs the Intelligence Officer

Annamma Vs Deputy Labour Commissioner

Ashokan K.R. Vs Assistant Labour Officer

Adithya Hazari Vs Assistant Labour Officer