Kerala High Court
WP(C)/30484/2012 of M/S.FASHION JEWELLARY Vs COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER 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. 30484 of 2012 (I) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- M/S.FASHION JEWELLARY, MAIN ROAD, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY
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. 30484 of 2012 (I)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):-------------
M/S.FASHION JEWELLARY,
MAIN ROAD, CHALAKUDY,
THRISSUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
C.P PAUL.
BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON
SMT.MEERA V.MENON
SRI.MAHESH V.MENON
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CHALAKUDY 680121. CHALAKUDY 680121.
2. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER S SUDHEESH KUMAR
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. 30484 of 2012 (I)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================
W.P.(C) NO. 30484 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
Petitioner is a partnership firm running a jewellery and is adealer registered under the KVAT Act. According to the petitioner,their head office is at Chalakudy and apart from their branch atAngamaly, they had a branch at Kollam also. They had opted forpayment of tax under Section 8 for the year 2011-12. It is alsotheir case that the branch at Kollam was closed w.e.f. 31/3/12.Subsequently they submitted Ext.P3 option for payment of tax forthe year 2012-13 and that was accepted. However, whenpayment of tax was made, they made proportionate deduction onaccount of the alleged closure of the Kollam Branch. Therefore,the petitioner filed Ext.P5 application for rectification. Althoughrectification was partially allowed, in Ext.P6 order, the issue raisedby the petitioner regarding the closure of the Kollam Branch wasnot dealt with. It is in these circumstances the writ petition isfiled.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Government Pleader. According to the learned Government Pleader, there is no provision for allowing a departure assought by the petitioner as the basis for compounding is the tax thatwas paid for the previous year.
3. However, if as stated by the petitioner, the branch wasclosed w.e.f. 31/3/12 and when rectification of the assessment issought on that basis by filing Ext.P5 application, the authority had theresponsibly of dealing with that contention of the petitioner also.Reading of Ext.P6 shows that this contention of the petitioner has notbeen dealt with. Instead, the modification in other respect has beenallowed. In such circumstances, I am inclined to think that the issueraised by the petitioner regarding their entitlement for proposeddeduction of tax consequent on closure of the Kollam Branch alsoshould be considered by the 1[st] respondent.
Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that, on the production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writpetition, 1[st] respondent will pass orders on Ext.P5 to the extent asindicated above. Such orders shall be passed as expeditiously aspossible at any rate within four weeks.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE