Dismissed

Hotel City Heights v. Commercial Tax Officer

Kerala HC8 Jun 2023WP(C)/1029/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition filed by Hotel City Heights challenging restoration of tax assessment orders and subsequent demand notices. The court held that failures to produce records within stipulated time justified the restoration of orders and the issuance of demands.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; prayers for modification of orders and stay on recovery were denied.

Hotel City Heights Vs Commercial Tax Officer — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1029 OF 2017

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

HOTEL CITY HEIGHTS (A UNIT OF HERCULES HOSPITALITIES PVT. LTD),CHETTIKULANGARA, G.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN - 695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHRISEDSIGNATORY SRI.SUNILKUMAR.

¶8

BY ADV SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM)

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER THIRD CIRCLE, TAX TOWERS,KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN - 695 002.

¶11

2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER APPEALS COMMERCIAL TAXES, TOWERS, KARAMANA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 002.

¶12

3 THE TAHSILDAR RR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023. BY ADVS. SRI. SAYED MURTHALA THANGAL,GOVERNMENT PLEADER GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) No.1029 OF 2017

¶15

¶16

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶17

=========================

¶18

W.P.(C) No.1029 of 2017

¶19

=========================

¶20

Dated this the 8^th day of June, 2023

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶23

reliefs:

¶24

“Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, orders or directions, directing -

¶25

(a) the 1^st respondent to modify Ext.P1 to Ext.P1(c) orders based on Ext.P2 at the earliest; and

¶26

(b) the 1^st respondent, the 3^rd respondent or anybody acting on his behalf not to take coercive steps for the recovery of the demand covered by Ext.P1 to Ext.P1(c) orders and Ext.P3 to Ext.P3(b) demand notices.”

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶28

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and had been paying tax under Section 8 of the Act. It is submitted that the 1^st respondent cancelled the permission granted to the petitioner under Section 8 and re-opened the self assessment in respect of the petitioner for the years

¶29

WP(C) No.1029 OF 2017

¶30

¶31

2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 on the ground that the petitioner was a star hotel. It is submitted that the petitioner had preferred an appeal as against Exhibits P1 to P1(c) orders and the 2^nd respondent as per Exhibit P2 directed the 1^st respondent to modify Exhibits P1 to P1(c) orders, after verifying the books of accounts of the petitioner. It is submitted that though the 1^st respondent verified the books of accounts for the four years, no orders based on the directions of the 2^nd respondent in Exhibit P2 were passed. However, Exhibits P3 to P3(b) demand notices were raised which are under challenge in the writ petition.

¶32

A counter affidavit has been placed on record on 27.09.2017. It is stated therein, that the direction in Exhibit P2 was specifically to the petitioner to produce the connected records without fail, before the Assessing Authority within one month from the date of receipt of the order and to the Assessing Authority on proper verification, to modify the order accordingly, without fail. It is submitted that the petitioner had not produced any records before the Assessing Authority within one month as directed in Exhibit P2 order. It is

¶33

WP(C) No.1029 OF 2017

¶34

¶35

submitted that the 1^st respondent had issued notices to the 3 partners of the petitioner's hotel, requesting the production of the documents for verification as required in Exhibit P2. It is submitted that Exhibit R1(a) to R1(b) notices dated 25.05.2015, specifically required the assessee to file objections and to avail the opportunity of personal hearing on or before 08.06.2015, failing which Exhibit P1 assessment orders will be restored. R1(f) is a letter issued by the Senior Superintendent of the Department of Posts, stating that the registered letters under reference were delivered on 01.06.2015 and 02.06.2015 respectively. It is, therefore, contended that on failure of the petitioner to abide by the conditions in Exhibit P2 and in the notices issued, Exhibit P1 series of assessment orders had been restored and therefore, demands raised on 02.11.2016 are perfectly in order.

¶36

Having considered the contentions advanced and in the light of directions of Exhibit P2, as also the specific contentions in the counter affidavit that the petitioner did not produce any documents or records before the Assessing Officer within the time provided as in Exhibit P2 or even within

¶37

WP(C) No.1029 OF 2017

¶38

¶39

the time required by Exhibits R1(a) to (b) series notices, I am

¶40

of the opinion that the prayers as sought for are not liable to

¶41

be granted. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly

¶42

dismissed.

¶43

Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶44

SSK/08/06

¶45

WP(C) No.1029 OF 2017

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX

¶48

PETITIONER EXHIBITS P1	COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.7.2014 FOR THE YEAR 2009-2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
P1(A)	COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.7.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11.
P1(B)	COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.7.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE EYAR 2011-12.
P1(C)	COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20.10.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13.
P2	COPY OF ORDER DATED 18.2.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
P3	COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 02.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER THE RR ACT IN RESPECT OF EXT.P1 ORDER.
P3(A)	COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 02.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER THE RR ACT IN RESPECT OF EXT.P1(A)
P3(B)	COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 02.11.2061 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER THE RR ACT IN RESPECT OF EXT.P1(C)

Hotel City Heights v. Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hotel City Heights v. Commercial Tax Officer

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

Mariyam Rasheed Vs the District Collector

Reserve Bank of India Vs Meenakshi P.R

N.R. Gopalakrishnan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Sebastian Durom, Vs the Regional Manager, State Bank of India

Sebastian Durom Vs Authorised Officer, SBI

A-One Handlooms and Readymade Vs the Commercial Tax Officer