Disposed

Chathamkulam Projects and Developers Private Limited v. the State Tax Officer -1 (Works Contract)

Kerala HC22 Jul 2020WP(C)/14735/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's rectification application within three months after hearing the petitioner. Recovery steps under the demand notice must remain in abeyance until orders are passed and communicated.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to consider rectification application within three months; recovery steps stayed.

Chathamkulam Projects and Developers Private Limited Vs… — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2020 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.14735 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

CHATHAMKULAM PROJECTS AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHATHAMKULAM CHAMBERS, NH47 CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.SUMESH BABU

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

THE STATE TAX OFFICER -1 (WORKS CONTRACT) STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT KERALA, PALAKKAD-678001

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

G.P. DR.THUSHARA JAMES

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.14735 OF 2020

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the KVAT Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 rectification application before the respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that even before the rectification application has been considered by the respondent, steps were taken to recover the amounts confirmed against the petitioner through the issuance of Ext.P3 demand notice.

¶18

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶19

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I deem it appropriate to dispose the writ petition by directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 rectification application within an outer time limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. It is made clear that till such time as orders are passed by the respondent as directed, and the orders communicated to the petitioner, recovery steps for recovery of amounts pursuant to Ext.P3 demand notice shall be kept in abeyance. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment together with a copy of the writ petition before the respondent for further action.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶22

JUDGE

¶23

¶24

WP(C).No.14735 OF 2020

¶25

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶28

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 18.01.2020

¶29

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 12.03.2020

¶30

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM NO.12 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 18.01.2020

Chathamkulam Projects and Developers Private Limited v. the State Tax Officer -1 (Works Contract)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chathamkulam Projects and Developers Private Limited v. the State Tax Officer -1 (Works Contract)

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

Jayadan.T.a Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Surekha.K.C Vs the Branch Manager

Perumbavoor Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.2024 Vs the Central Board of Direct Taxes

Thaniyam Panchayath Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. R 387 Vs the Central Board of Direct Taxes

The Koonammoochi Peoples Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.No. 603, Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

Syam P.S. Vs the Regional Transport Officer