Kerala High Court
WP(C)/41516/2016 of THE PLANATATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED Vs THE STATE OF KERALA on 30 December 2016
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/9TH POUSHA, 1938 WP(C).No. 41516 of 2016 (L) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: ------------------------ THE PLANATATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/9TH POUSHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 41516 of 2016 (L)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:
------------------------
THE PLANATATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED, MUTTAMBALAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 004.
BY ADV. SRI.RAJU SEBASTIAN VADAKKEKKARA
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, (APPEALS), KOTTAYAM-686 001. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KOTTAYAM-686 001. 5. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM-686 001.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS----------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERS OF ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE3RD RESPONDENT DTD 30/6/20163RD RESPONDENT DTD 30/6/2016
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THECORPORATION BEFORE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAXAPPELLATE AUTHORITYCORPORATION BEFORE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAXAPPELLATE AUTHORITY
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION SUBMITTED BY THECORPORATION BEFORE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAXAPPELLATE AUTHORITY DTD 26/7/2016.CORPORATION BEFORE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAXAPPELLATE AUTHORITY DTD 26/7/2016.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION SUBMITTEDBY THE PETITIONER FOR EARLY HEARING OF EXT P1 APPEALBY THE PETITIONER FOR EARLY HEARING OF EXT P1 APPEAL
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER UNDERSECTION 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACTSECTION 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER UNDERSECTION 34 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT.SECTION 34 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.41516 of 2016
----------------------------------------- Dated this the 30[th] day of December, 2016
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner who is an agricultural income tax assessee onthe files of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, CommercialTaxes, Kottayam, impugns Exhibit P1 assessment made againstthem. They have preferred Exhibit P2 which is the statutorysecond appeal before the fifth respondent Agricultural Income TaxAppellate Tribunal. They say that they have also moved anapplication for stay. However, the grievance shown in the WritPetition is that the fifth respondent is not sitting regularly and thattherefore, their application for stay has not been able to beconsidered till now, pending which proceedings for recovery hasbeen commenced.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1to 4.
3. As I have noticed already, the petitioner's grievancepresently in this Writ Petition is that even though a stay applicationis pending before the fifth respondent, steps have been taken forrecovery of the amounts due as per Exhibits P5 and P6. Thepetitioner says that if recovery is attempted to be completed evenbefore the appeals are considered by the fifth respondent, he would be put to irreparable injury. Since it is submitted by the petitionerthat the fifth respondent Tribunal is not sitting regularly, I deem itnecessary that some interim orders be issued to protect the interestsof the petitioner.
4. In such circumstances, I stay all recovery actionpursuant to Exhibits P5 and P6 for a period of two months withinwhich time the petitioner shall move the fifth respondent for orderson the stay application.
W.P.(C) 41516/2016
No further orders are required in this Writ Petition. The WritPetition is ordered as above.
csl
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
Judge