Shahul Hameed A. vs. The Assistant State Tax Officer
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 30TH ASWINA, 1943 WA NO. 1348 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 19250/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT/PETITIONER: SHAHUL HAMEED A. AGED 56 YEARS PROPRIETOR, M/S.S.S.TRADING, 13/23-C, ONGALLUR, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER SQUAD NO.VII, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD - 678 001. 2 THE STATE TAX OFFICER SQUAD NO.VII, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD - 678 001. 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX STATE GST DEPARTMENT, TAX TOWERS, KILLIPALAM, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 002. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 1348 OF 2021 -2- JUDGMENT S.V.Bhatti.J. Writ petitioner is the appellant and challenges the judgment dated 16.09.2021 in W.P.(C) No.19250 of 2021. 2. The appellant before the learned Single Judge challenged Ext.P7 order dated 02.08.2021 made under Section 130 of GST Act. The learned Single Judge through the judgment under appeal declined to exercise the writ juri iction to review Ext.P7 having regard to the fact that the petitioner has alternative remedy under the Act. Hence the appeal.
Adv.Harishanker V.Menon tries to convince us by contending that the ground on very applicability of Section 129 which goes to the root of the matter was raised in the writ petition and the challenge if considered from that perspective, the present
WA NO. 1348 OF 2021 -3- writ petition is maintainable on this ground, this Court ought not to dismiss the writ petition at the admission stage.
Government Pleader Ms. M.M Jasmine contends that the argument of the petitioner is a mixed question of fact and law which can be appreciated only upon examining all the controversies surrounding the issue of notice and the resultant order in Ext.P7. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in refusing to entertain the writ petition. No ground is made out on the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge. Prays for dismissing the appeal.
We have perused the record and also noted the rival submissions. We do not want to repeat ourselves with an independent conclusion on the ground recorded by the Single Judge for dismissing the Writ Petition, for we are in entire agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge. Adverting to the argument of Mr. Harishankar V. Menon on the applicability of Section 129 of the Act, we are of the view that the consideration of
WA NO. 1348 OF 2021 -4-
this ground cannot be taken up independent of other circumstances and the sequence of all events/documents will have to be appreciated. Hence this ground can be certainly raised before the Appellate Authority. By leaving all the contentions available in this behalf, while working out the remedy of statutory appeal we confirm the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Appeal fails, dismissed accordingly. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE BASANT BALAJI JUDGE JS
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.