Kerala High Court
WP(C)/41973/2017 of M/S. KANAI BUILDERS Vs STATE OF KERALA 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. 41973 of 2017 (V) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- M/S. KANAI BUILDERS, VELLAYAMBALAM, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O.,
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. 41973 of 2017 (V)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
---------------------
M/S. KANAI BUILDERS,
VELLAYAMBALAM, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER VARGHESE A.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.SADASIVAN
SRI.JOY P.JOSE SRI.K.N.KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI SRI.C.V.SASI SRI.K.JAYAMOHANAN PILLAI SMT.P.S.SETHULEKSHMY
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. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY (TAXES), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. ASST. COMMISSIONER (WORKS CONTRACT),
COMMERCIAL TAXES, TAX TOWERS, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 002.
3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,
REVENUE RECOVERY, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER 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:
WP(C).No. 41973 of 2017 (V)
---------------------------------------- APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 4.7.2017 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT FOR 2014-15 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT FOR 2014-15
EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21.12.2017 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21.12.2017
EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY DATED 21.12.2017 FILED BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY DATED 21.12.2017 FILED BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21.12.2017 FILED BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5. RECOVERY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 30.11.2017 DATED 30.11.2017
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS - NIL
------------------------------------------------ /TRUE COPY/
PS TO JUDGE
Devan Ramachandran, J.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
W.P.(C) No.41973 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 ofassessment made against him, a copy of which has beenappended to this writ petition as Ext.P1. According to thepetitioner, against the order of assessment, he has alreadyapproached the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the 3[rd]respondent herein, by preferring an appeal. The grievance ofthe petitioner is that even though his appeal and the applicationfor stay, a copy of which has been produced as Exts.P2 and P3respectively, are pending before the Deputy Commissioner(Appeals), steps have been taken for recovery of the assessedtax from him through Ext.P5 revenue recovery notice. Thepetitioner prays that the recovery against him be interdicted atleast until such time as the stay petition is considered by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals).
2. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf ofthe 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). However, I notice that in this case thepetitioner has also filed Ext.P4 application before the AppellateAuthority to condone delay in filing the appeal.
5. In such circumstances, I order this writ petition,directing the 3[rd] respondent to take up Ext.P4 application forcondonation of delay and to consider the same and if the delay iscondoned, to take up Ext.P3 stay petition preferred by the petitioner and pass orders thereon., within a period of one monthfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Until suchtime as the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) passes an order onthe delay application, and if it is allowed on the stay petition, andcommunicates the same to the petitioner, all steps for recoverypursuant to Ext.P5 revenue recovery notice for recovery ofamounts against the petitioner, confirmed through Ext.P1assessment order, shall be kept in abeyance.
To facilitate an expeditious disposal of the applications, Idirect 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 so placed before the DeputyCommissioner (Appeals).
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
Devan Ramachandran,Judge