WP(C)/42158/2017 of M/S. MAXBOND INDUSTRIES Vs THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER on 29 December 2017

1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD - 678 101.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD - 679 502.COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD - 679 502.

3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD - 678 101.STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD - 678 101.

4. TAHSILDAR, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD - 678 101.PALAKKAD - 678 101.

5. VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKARAPATHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD - 678 556. VADAKARAPATHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD - 678 556.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.THUSHARA JAMES

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

WP(C).No. 42158 of 2017 (T) --------------------------- APPENDIX

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1. A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25.9.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE DATED 25.9.2017.DATED 25.9.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE DATED 25.9.2017.

EXHIBIT P2. A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 30.11.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.DATED 30.11.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3. A TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION DATED 30.11.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.DATED 30.11.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.EXHIBIT P4. A TRUE COPY OF THE EARLY POSTING PETITION DATED 30.11.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.DATED 30.11.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5. A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 30.11.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.DATED 30.11.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.EXHIBIT P6. A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 19.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.DATED 19.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

mbr/

P.S. TO JUDGE

Devan Ramachandran, J.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

W.P.(C) No.42158 of 2017

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Dated this the 29[th] day of December, 2017

JUDGMENT~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The petitioner impugns the action for recovery initiatedby the competent authorities, subsequent to an order ofassessment made against him, a copy of which has beenappended to this writ petition as Ext.P1. According to thepetitioner, against the order of assessment, he has alreadyapproached the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals), Palakkad bypreferring Ext.P2 appeal. The grievance of the petitioner is thateven though his appeal and the application for stay, a copy ofwhich has been produced as Ext.P5, are pending before theAssistant Commissioner (Appeals), steps have been taken forrecovery of the assessed tax from him through Ext.P6 revenuerecovery notice. The petitioner prays that the recovery againsthim be interdicted at least until such time as the stay petition isconsidered by the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals).

W.P(C).42158/17 :2:

2. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf ofthe respondents submits that, it is true that the petitioner haspreferred appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals),but she says that since the amount involved is substantial, noorder of stay may be granted, except on terms. He also adds thatthe petitioner's appeal is not filed in time and that Ext.P3application for condonation of delay is also pending before theAppellate Authority.

3. I have considered the submissions made by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner as well as the learned GovernmentPleader.

4. Taking note of similar orders passed by this Court inanalogous situations, I am of the view that the petitioner can begiven some respite from the rigor of recovery, at least until suchtime as his stay petition is considered by the DeputyCommissioner (Appeals).

5. In such circumstances, I order this writ petition,directing the 2[nd] respondent to take up Ext.P3 application filedby the petitioner seeking to condone the delay and to considerthe same and if the delay is condoned, to take up Ext.P5 staypetition preferred by the petitioner and pass orders thereon, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis judgment. Until such time as the Assistant Commissioner(Appeals) passes an order on Ext.P3 application to condone delayor on the stay petition, as the case may be, and communicatesthe same to the petitioner, all steps for recovery pursuant toExt.P6 revenue recovery notice for recovery of amounts againstthe petitioner, confirmed through Ext.P1 assessment order, shallbe kept in abeyance.

6. To facilitate an expeditious disposal of the stay petition,I direct the petitioner to place a certified copy of this judgment,along with a copy of this writ petition, before the DeputyCommissioner (Appeals), and the time-frame granted in thisjudgment will begin from the date on which the copy of thejudgment and the writ petition are placed before the DeputyCommissioner (Appeals).

This writ petition is thus ordered.

Sd/-

Devan Ramachandran,Judge