Kerala High Court
WP(C)/41971/2017 of THE VADAVANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. Vs THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB) on 29 December 2017
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/8TH POUSHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 41971 of 2017 (V) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : ------------------- THE VADAVANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. VADAVANNUR, PALAKKAD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/8TH POUSHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 41971 of 2017 (V)
----------------------------
PETITIONER :
-------------------
THE VADAVANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. VADAVANNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RAVI.B.
BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA
RESPONDENTS :
--------------------------
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.
1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD - 678 101.
2. THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NOORANI, PALAKKAD - 678 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. THE INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CHITTUR - 678 101.
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. 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:
bp
---------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FORTHE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 25.10.2016THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 25.10.2016
EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD DATED 08.03.2017COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD DATED 08.03.2017
EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.09.2017THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.09.2017
EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.09.2017BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.09.2017
EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.09.2017BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.09.2017
EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF NOTICE IN FORM NO.1 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 24.12.2016RESPONDENT DATED 24.12.2016
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
bp
Devan Ramachandran, J.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
W.P.(C) No.41971 of 2017
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Dated this the 29[th] day of December, 2017
JUDGMENT~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The petitioner impugns the action for recoveryinitiated by the competent authorities, subsequent to an order ofpenalty made against him, a copy of which has been appendedto this writ petition as Ext.P1. According to the petitioner,against the order of penalty, he has already approached theDeputy Commissioner, Palakkad by preferring Ext.P3 appeal.The grievance of the petitioner is that even though his appealand the application for stay, a copy of which has been producedas Ext.P5, are pending before the Deputy Commissioner(Appeals), steps have been taken for recovery of the assessedtax from him through Ext.P6 revenue recovery notice. Thepetitioner prays that the recovery against him be interdicted atleast until such time as the stay petition is considered by theDeputy Commissioner (Appeals).
2. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that, it is true that the petitioner haspreferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), butshe says that since the amount involved is substantial, no orderof stay may be granted, except on terms.
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 3[rd] respondent to take up Ext.P4 application fordelay and to consider the same and if the delay is condoned, totake up Ext.P5 stay petition preferred by the petitioner and passorders thereon, within a period of one month from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this judgment. Until such time as theDeputy Commissioner (Appeals) passes an order on Ext.P4application to condone delay or on the stay petition, and communicates the same to the petitioner, all steps for recoverypursuant to Ext.P6 revenue recovery notice for recovery ofamounts against the petitioner, confirmed through Ext.P1penalty order, shall be 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).
Sd/-
Devan Ramachandran,Judge