Disposed

Lijo Jose, v. the State Tax Officer

Kerala HC21 Jun 2023WP(C)/6660/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed by a taxpayer seeking permission to pay a tax demand settled under the Amnesty Scheme in instalments. The court allowed the petition, permitting the petitioner to submit a representation for instalment payment and directing respondents to defer coercive proceedings while considering the representation within one month.

What did the court decide?

Permitted the petitioner to submit a representation to pay the balance amount in instalments; directed deferment of coercive proceedings pending disposal of the representation within one month.

Lijo Jose, Vs the State Tax Officer — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP(C) No.6660 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 6660 OF 2023

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

LIJO JOSE,
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.JOSE, PROPRIETOR, 4 CORNER
DISTRIBUTORS,MEEBANATHA HOUSE, KANNARA.P.O.,
MANNANCHIRA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680652

¶9

BY ADVS.
C.A.CHACKO
C.M.CHARISMA
BABU V.P.

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1THE STATE TAX OFFICER,
STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX COMPLEX, FIRST CIRCLE,
POOTHOLE, THRISSUR, (FORMER COMMERCIAL TAX
OFFICER)., PIN - 680004
2THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,
THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR TALUK OFFICE, CHEMBUKKAV,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680020
3THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PEECHI VILLAGE, PEECHI VILLAGE OFFICE, PANANCHERY,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680652
BY ADV THUSHARA JAMES,GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

WP(C) No.6660 of 2023

¶15

C.S DIAS,J.

¶16

WP(C) No.6660 of 2023

¶17

-----------------------------

¶18

Dated this the 21^st day of June, 2023^.

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The writ petition is filed, inter alia, to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to pay off the demanded

¶21

amount in instalments.

¶22

The petitioner’s case is that the first respondent has

¶23

passed assessment orders against the petitioner. Subsequently, he was issued Exts P1 to P3 orders demanding a total amount of Rs.7,47,047/-. The petitioner challenged the said orders before the Appellate Authority. However, subsequently, the petitioner opted for the Amnesty Scheme and withdrew the appeals. The petitioner’s liability was reduced to Rs.3,05,000/-. However, he could only pay an

¶24

amount of Rs.2,42,360/-. Now the respondents have issued

¶25

¶26

WP(C) No.6660 of 2023

¶27

Exts P7 to P10 demand notices seeking for recovery of the entire amount. The action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. Hence, the writ petition.

¶28

Heard; Smt.C.M Charisma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt Thushara James, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶29

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the respondents have now issued Exts P7 to P10 demand notices because the petitioner failed to pay off the amount that was settled as per the Amnesty Scheme. There is no illegality in the action of the respondents because the petitioner failed to pay the agreed amount.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be granted one more opportunity to approach the first respondent to submit a representation so as to enable him to pay the amount as per

¶31

¶32

WP(C) No.6660 of 2023

¶33

the Amnesty Scheme. I find the said submission to be

¶34

reasonable, especially taking into account the petitioner has already remitted Rs. 2,42,360/- for the demand of Rs.3,05,000/-.

¶35

Resultantly, the writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

¶36

(i) The petitioner is permitted to submit a representation

¶37

before the first respondent to pay off the balance amount as per the demand made by the respondents in instalments.

¶38

(ii) The petitioner shall submit such representation before the first respondent within a period of ten day from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.

¶39

(iii) If the petitioner submits a representation as ordered

¶40

above, the first respondent shall consider and dispose of the

¶41

same, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as

¶42

¶43

WP(C) No.6660 of 2023

¶44

possible, at any rate within a period of one month thereafter,

¶45

after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

¶46

(iv) Until such time orders are passed on the said representation, further coercive proceedings shall stand deferred.

¶47

SD/-

¶48

sks/21.6.2023 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

¶49

¶50

WP(C) No.6660 of 2023

¶51

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6660/2023

¶52

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶53

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 23/1/2017 ALONG`
	`WITH DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST` `RESPONDENT FOR APRIL 2015`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 23/1/2017 ALONG` `WITH DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST` `RESPONDENT FOR MAY 2015 TO MARCH 2016`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 23/1/2017 ALONG` `WITH DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST` `RESPONDENT FOR APRIL 2016 TO MAY 2016`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF CHALANS DATED 29/3/2017 AND` `6/4/2017 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 8/3/2018 IN` `WP(C)NO.7905/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF CHALAN DATED 25/3/2023`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF NOTICE WITH RRC` `NO.2022/5438/08 DATED 27/5/2022 ISSUED BY` `2ND RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF NOTICE WITH RRC` `NO.2022/6842/08 DATED 19/7/2022`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE COPY OF NOTICE WITH RRC` `NO.2022/6845/08 DATED 19/7/2022`
`Exhibit P10`	`TRUE COPY OF NOTICE WITH RRC` `NO.2022/6847/08 DATED 19/7/2022`

Lijo Jose, v. the State Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lijo Jose, v. the State Tax Officer

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

Kunjimalu Vs Balagangadharan

Mumthas, Vs the Ottapalam Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd,.

K.P. Noushad Vs Raveendran. K

Shinu T.R, Vs the Authorised Officer

Palmshore Hotels Private Limited,Represented by Its Managing Director Mr. Binu Mohamed Vs Union of India

Beeran Koya a, Vs Authorised Officer, Aadhar Housing Finance Limited