Disposed

Cynosure Power Systems v. Assistant Commissioner (Works Contract)

Kerala HC5 Jan 2022WP(C)/168/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala directed the Deputy Commissioner to consider and decide a rectification application under Section 66 of the KVAT Act pending for over three years, keeping coercive proceedings in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider the rectification application filed under Section 66 of KVAT Act within two months and keep coercive proceedings in abeyance.

Cynosure Power Systems Vs Assistant Commissioner (Works… — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 15TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 168 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

CYNOSURE POWER SYSTEMS

¶8

AMRUTHAM, 9/2073 SEKT-H1, THAMARAKULAM LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, N.JAYAKUMAR.

¶9

BY ADV MARTHANDA VARMA PANDALAI.K

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (WORKS CONTRACT) COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (APPEALS), STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002.

¶13

SMT.M.M.JASMIN, GOVT. PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 168 OF 2022

¶16

¶17

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶18

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶19

W.P.(C).No.168 of 2022

¶20

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶21

Dated this the 5^th day of January, 2022

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Petitioner is a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, 'the KVAT Act'). It seeks for a direction for disposing Ext.P7 application filed under Section 66 of the KVAT Act.

¶24

By order dated 14.09.2017, the appeal filed by the petitioner against an order under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act was dismissed by the 2^nd respondent. Consequently, petitioner filed a rectification application under Section 66 of the KVAT Act as per Ext.P7. According to the petitioner, the application for rectification has been pending consideration for the last more than three years and that in the meantime, coercive proceedings are proposed to be initiated against the petitioner.

¶25

Having regard to the circumstances mentioned above and after having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.K.M.V.Pandalai as well as the learned Government Pleader Smt.M.M.Jasmin, I am of the view that this writ petition can

¶26

¶27

WP(C) NO. 168 OF 2022

¶28

be disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the rectification application.

¶29

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7 application filed by the petitioner under Section 66 of the KVAT Act, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Till a decision is taken as directed above, all coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 and Ext.P5(a) shall be kept in abeyance.

¶30

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶31

Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE

¶32

RKM

¶33

WP(C) NO. 168 OF 2022

¶34

¶35

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 168/2022

¶36

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶37

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL WORK ORDER DATED 20.10.2009.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.4.2015.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S 25(A) DATED 30.3.2015 FOR 2011-12.
Exhibit P3(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S 25(A) DATED 30.3.2015 FOR 2012-13.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 5.5.2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR 2011-12.
Exhibit P4(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 5.5.2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR 2012-13.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 2.6.2015 FOR 2011-12.
Exhibit P5(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 2.6.2015 FOR 2012-13.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 14.9.2017 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR 2011-12 & 2012-13.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
	25.3.2018 FILED U/S 66 BY THE PETITIONER.

Cynosure Power Systems v. Assistant Commissioner (Works Contract)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cynosure Power Systems v. Assistant Commissioner (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

National Radio Electronics Corporation Vs State Tax Officer (Intelligence)

Shylesh K. Vs the Authorized Officer, Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Jose M Panikkulam Vs Irinjalakkuda Town Co-Operative Bank

Maniyammal Vs Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited

Gmmco Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

Lee Builders Vs the State Tax Officer