Disposed

T.K.Shoukathali, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Kerala HC2 Apr 2019WP(C)/10196/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, instead of issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the tax order, directed the petitioner to work out the statutory remedy available under Section 59 of the KVAT Act, 2003. The court restrained the respondents from taking coercive steps pending the disposal of the revision within four months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to avail remedy under Section 59 of the KVAT Act, 2003 within four weeks; respondents restrained from coercive steps until revision disposed of within four months.

T.K.Shoukathali, Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 02ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No. 10196 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

T.K.SHOUKATHALI, AGED 55 YEARS KOYA HAJI,

¶8

THONDIYIL HOUSE, KARUVARAKUNDU, PROPRIETOR, M/S. BISMI ENTERPRISES, KARUVARAKUNDU MALAPPURAM.

¶9

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

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, MALAPPURAM 676 505.

¶12

2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STATE TAX, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, MALAPPURAM 676 505.

¶13

3 THE STATE TAX OFFICER-1, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, NILAMBUR 679 329.

¶14

4 THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF STATE GST, KILLIPPLAM, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 002.

¶15

SR. GP. SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 10196 of 2019

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner prays for Writ of Certiorari to quash Exts.P4 and P7 issued by the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents respectively. The circumstances relevant for disposing of the writ petition are briefly stated thus:

¶21

The 1^st respondent through Ext.P1 Order No. 32100257062/2011-12 dated 02-09-2013 completed the assessment. The 2^nd respondent issued Ext.P2 notice under Section 56 of the KVAT Act, 2003. The petitioner through Ext.P3 replied to the notice in Ext.P2, the first and foremost objection taken by the petitioner is under sub-section (c) of

¶22

Section 56 (2) the Act which reads thus:

¶23

(2) The Deputy Commissioner shall not pass any order under sub-section (1) if,-

(a)......

(b)...., or

WP(C).No. 10196 of 2019 3

¶28

The 2^nd respondent adverting to the objection of limitation raised by the petitioner finds that the starting point of limitation is from the date of detection of fraud. This finding of the 2^nd respondent among other findings are challenged in this writ petition.

¶29

The learned Government Pleader opposes the writ prayer by contending that the petitioner has effective remedy of further revision under Section 59 of the KVAT Act, 2003. The petitioner as well could avail the statutory remedy and there could be a direction from this Court to consider the objection of limitation raised by the petitioner in the manner prescribed in law.

¶30

The counsel for the petitioner does not object to availing the remedy under Section 59 of the Act but contends that having regarded to a question of importance by way of limitation is raised by the petitioner, the interest of the petitioner is reasonably protected keeping in view the swift decision taken through Ext.P7. I have perused Exts.P4 and P7 and I am of the view that the petitioner can be

¶31

WP(C).No. 10196 of 2019 4

¶32

relegated to work out the relief available under Section 59 within four weeks from today by enclosing a copy of this order and this Court directs that no coercive step is taken by the respondents pursuant to Ext.P7 till the revision is disposed of and order communicated to the petitioner. The revision filed by the petitioner is heard and disposed of in four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

S.V.BHATTI

JUDGE

SVP

WP(C).No. 10196 of 2019

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 2.9.2013. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.2.2019. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 5.3.2019. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 15.3.2019. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19.3.2019. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.3.2019. EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 27.3.2019.

¶42

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

¶43

//TRUE COPY//

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

PA TO JUDGE

T.K.Shoukathali, v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.K.Shoukathali, v. the Assistant Commissioner

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

All India BSNL Casual Workers Union(Intuc), Vs the Sub Divisional Engineer

Continental India (P) Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner

All India BSNL Causal Workers Union (Intuc) Vs the Divisional Engineer

M.M.Paulose Vs the Deputy Registrar of Trade Unions

Jmj Traders, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

M/S.Elite Tourist Home, Vs the Deputy Commissioner