Kerala High Court
WP(C)/41288/2016 of M/S. KANICHAYIS ENTERPRISES Vs THE ASST. COMMISSIONER-II 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.41288 OF 2016 (I) -------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- M/S.KANICHAYIS ENTERPRISES, (HOTEL LUCIYA PALACE), MARAR ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001,
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.41288 OF 2016 (I)
--------------
PETITIONER(S):-------------
M/S.KANICHAYIS ENTERPRISES,(HOTEL LUCIYA PALACE), MARAR ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, PAUL BABU.
BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V.MENON
SMT.MEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER-II,
COMMERCIAL TAXES SPECIAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR-680 004. THRISSUR-680 004.
2. THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SALES TAX COMPLEX, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 015, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. KOCHI-682 015, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. THE INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX COMPLEX, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 001. COMMERCIAL TAX COMPLEX, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 001.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.VINEETHA HARIRAJ
THIS WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON30-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).41288/2016 (I)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
P1:COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THEYEAR 2012-13.YEAR 2012-13.
P2: COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),ERNAKULAM.ERNAKULAM.
P3:COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2NDRESPONDENT.RESPONDENT.
P4:COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2NDRESPONDENT.RESPONDENT.
P5:COPY OF ACKNOWLDGMENT LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERBEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
P5A: COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERBEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
P6:COPY OF THE NOTICE IN FORM NO.1 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL
KRJ
/TRUE COPY/
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No.41288 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, being an assessee under the rolls of the firstrespondent, had been assessed for the year 2012-13 as per ExhibitP1 order. The petitioner impugns Exhibit P6 notice, as per which,action has been taken by the third respondent for recovery of theamounts covered by Exhibit P1 assessment order against thepetitioner under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. Thepetitioner submits that they had already preferred an appealagainst the order of assessment before the second respondentalong with an application for stay, which are produced as ExhibitsP4 and P4 along with the writ petition and that they are pendingconsideration. They only seek that a direction be issued to thesecond respondent to take up the stay petition filed along with theappeal and dispose of the same, within a time frame.
2. In the circumstances of this case and taking into account that interests of substantial justice would be served if a direction isissued to the second respondent to issue orders on the stay petitionfiled by the petitioner along with the appeal, I, therefore, direct the WP(C).41288/16
second respondent to take up Exhibit P4 stay petition filed by thepetitioner along with Exhibit P3 appeal and dispose of the saidapplication, within a period of one month from the date of receipt ofa copy of this judgment.
I make this order also in view of the submission made by thelearned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has satisfied50% of the demand that has been made against him.
krj.31/12
Sd/-
Devan Ramachandran, Judge