BharatTaxGST

K.I.Paulose vs. Kerala Water Authority

Original PDF →
WP(C)/23879/2018HC KeralaGSTCNR KLHC01055466201806 August 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN4 pages

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1940 WP(C).No. 23879 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) K.I.PAULOSE, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.ITTIYAVARA VARKEY, KUNNEL HOUSE, KUNNACKAL P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 316. BY ADVS.SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY SRI.ANIL GEORGE SRI.K.S.SUMEESH SMT.N.B.FATHIMA SULFATH SMT.K.BINCYMOL RESPONDENT(S): 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H.CIRCLE, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PH DIVISION, MALAPPURAM. BY SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DSV/- WP(C).No. 23879 of 2018 (H) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1. THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT DATED 09.06.2016 SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.11.2017 GIVEN TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.02.2018 GIVEN TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE DSV/- ANU SIVARAMAN, J. -------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23879 of 2018 --------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2018

J U D G M E N T ------------------------------- The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: “i. issue an order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reimburse the amounts paid by the petitioner as Goods and Service Tax. ii. issue an order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pass orders on Exhibit P2 and P3 representation after hearing the petitioner.”

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that claiming the refund of amounts collected as GST on the works contract executed by the petitioner, the petitioner has approached the 2nd respondent preferring Exhibit P2 representation. It is stated that appropriate decision in the matter has to be taken by the first respondent. In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction to the first respondent to take up, consider and pass orders on Exhibits P2 and P3 representations preferred

W.P.(C) No.23879 of 2018 2 by the petitioner. The requisite shall be done by the first respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall also be heard before orders are passed as directed above. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment as well as a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for compliance. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE sab

Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.