Kerala High Court
WP(C)/30812/2012 of PHALGUNAN Vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR on 31 December 2012
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934 WP(C).No. 30812 of 2012 (B) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- PHALGUNAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, KADAVIL HOUSE, CHEMBOOKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PIN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934
WP(C).No. 30812 of 2012 (B)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):-------------
PHALGUNAN,
S/O.NARAYANAN, KADAVIL HOUSE, CHEMBOOKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PIN – 680 020.
BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):--------------
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.2.THE DEPUTY THAHASILDAR (R.R), THRISSUR TALUK OFFICE,POST THRISSUR CITY,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 020.
3.THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,3RD CIRCLE, THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN – 680 001.
BY ADV.SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 30812 of 2012 (B)
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
APPENDIX
EXT.P1:COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 30.11.2012 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE SALES TAX ARREARS FOR THE PERIOD 1989-1990 AND 1990-1991.THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE SALES TAX ARREARS FOR THE PERIOD 1989-1990 AND 1990-1991.
EXT.P2:COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 30.11.2012 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE SALES TAX ARREARS FOR THE PERIOD 1991-1992 AND 1992-1993.THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE SALES TAX ARREARS FOR THE PERIOD 1991-1992 AND 1992-1993.
EXT.P3:COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 30.11.2012 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE SALES TAX ARREARS FOR THE PERIOD 1993-1994.THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE SALES TAX ARREARS FOR THE PERIOD 1993-1994.
EXT.P4:COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.12.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5:COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 14.12.2012 ISSUED FOR THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS-NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 30812 OF 2012
===================
Dated this the 31[st] day of December, 2012
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.
J U D G M E N T
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedGovernment Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. Petitioner was the licencee of a retail outlet of IMFLwhich was conducted in the name and style of West Fort Liquors.According to the petitioner, he conducted the business only uptothe assessment year 1988-89 and discontinued the businessthereafter. It is also his case that another person by nameSri.P.K.Ganeshan continued the business in the same name fromthe year 1989-90 onwards. It is also his case that for the yearsupto 1988-89, there was no tax liability. However, he was servedExts.P1 to P3 revenue recovery notices for recovery of tax due forthe years from 1989-90 to 1993-94. As according to thepetitioner, he did not conduct business during those periods, hefiled Ext.P4 objection which was acknowledged by Ext.P5. Theobjections have not been considered so far and in the meanwhile,he apprehend further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 to P3. It isin these circumstances he has filed this writ petition.
3. A person aggrieved by the revenue recovery action isentitled to file his objections and those objections are liable to beconsidered by the appropriate authority. In so far as this case isconcerned, Ext.P4 objection has been acknowledged by the 1[st]respondent as per Ext.P5. Therefore, Ext.P4 objection deserves tobe considered.
Conclusion
4. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition directing thatthe 1[st] respondent shall, on the production of a copy of thisjudgment along with a copy of the writ petition, consider Ext.P4objection filed by the petitioner with notice to him and ordersthereon on shall be passed at any rate within four weeksthereafter. Until orders are passed on Ext.P4, further proceedingspursuant to Exts.P1 to P3 shall also be kept in abeyance.
Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with acopy of the writ petition before the 1[st] respondent for compliance.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE