Disposed

Raghavan.E.v., v. the Commercial Tax Officer(Works Contract)

Kerala HC29 May 2019WP(C)/6844/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed a writ petition concerning the petitioner's request for revision of returns under the KVAT Act, which remained unanswered. Despite the petitioner's plea that the soft copy of the email was not retrievable by authorities, the court directed the respondents to review the request and pass orders within fifteen days upon submission of the document.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to look into the petitioner's request for rectification and pass orders within fifteen days.

Raghavan.E.v., Vs the Commercial Tax… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No. 6844 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RAGHAVAN.E.V., AGED 46 YEARS PROPRIETOR, EUROFAB, MP 9/153B, MUNDUPARAMBA KAVUNGAL BYPASS ROAD, MALAPPURAM - 676 514.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.V.DEVANANDA NARASIMHAM SRI.P.H.RIYAS

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER(WORKS CONTRACT), COMMERCIAL TAXES, MALAPPURAM - 676 505.

¶11

2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY MONITORING CELL (ITMC), TAX TOWER, KILIPALAM, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 002.

¶12

DR.THUSHARA JAMES, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

-2-

¶15

WP(C).No. 6844 of 2019

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Heard Sri. Devananda Narasimham, the learned counsel for the petitioner at great length. The grievance in the writ petition though is too brief, the learned counsel has brought to the notice of the Court a few general difficulties faced by all the assessee under KVAT Act; these general statements do not form part of the subject matter of this writ petition, still the Court had patiently heard him. The short and long of the petitioner's narrative is that the request of the petitioner made through Ext.P2 remains unanswered till date. He prays for direction for consideration and disposing of the request made in Ext.P2 expeditiously.

¶18

The learned Government Pleader is equally vehement in canvassing that unless and until the petitioner demonstrates that Ext.P2 is in the portal of the respondents, this Court ought not to presume in-action on the part of

¶19

-3-

¶20

WP(C).No. 6844 of 2019

¶21

respondents and issue direction. It is contended that respondents not have objection to receive physical copy, for the soft copy allegedly mailed is not retrievable. The Court without further deliberation considers it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by this order.

¶22

Petitioner is given liberty to submit/re-submit Ext.P2 by enclosing a copy of this order within three days from today. Respondents 1 and 2 are look into the request of petitioner for rectification and pass orders within fifteen days thereafter.

Sd/-

S.V.BHATTI

JUDGE

-4-

WP(C).No. 6844 of 2019

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶31

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ANNUAL RETURN E-FILED ON 17/03/17 U/S 20 OF THE KVAT ACT, FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH KVATIS.

¶32

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF E-MAIL APPLICATION DATED 09/03/2018 E-FILED THROUGH GMAIL BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT REQUESTING PERMISSION TO REVISE QUARTERLY AS WELL AS ANNUAL RETURNS FOR THE YEAR 2015-16.

¶33

EXHIBIT P3

¶34

TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.33921 OF 2018 DATED 09/11/18.

Raghavan.E.v., v. the Commercial Tax Officer(Works Contract)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghavan.E.v., v. the Commercial Tax Officer(Works Contract)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Plus Max Duty Private Limited, Vs P.N.Rao

P.U.Mohandas Vs the Regional Transport Officer/Taxation Officer

Kovilakam Inn India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner (Assessment)

M/S.Beena Iron Traders Vs Assistant Commissioner

M/S.Regal Realtors and Projects (India) Pvt.Ltd., Vs the Commercial Tax Officer-I (Wc and Lt)

George Thomas Vs State of Kerala