St. Thomas Poultry Farm vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNE AY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 7TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 20484 OF 2021 PETITIONER: ST. THOMAS POULTRY FARM KOMBODINJAMAKKAL, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MARTIN.P.J. BY ADVS. SRI.K.SRIKUMAR (SR.) SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX STATE GOOD AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT OF KERALA, SPECIAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR-680001. 2 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX , STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT OF KERALA, THRISSUR-680001. 3 THE COMMISSIONER, STATE GST DEPARTMENT,KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002. SMT THUSHARA JAMES , SR.GP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 20484 OF 2021 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner, which is a Poultry Farm, has approached this Court impugning Ext.P3 pre-assessment notice, however, submitting that they have aleady preferred Ext.P4 statutory Revision before the third respondent. They, therefore, pray that the third respondent be directed to take up Ext.P4 Revision petition and dispose it of within a time frame to be fixed by this Court and to restrain the first respondent from continuing with the assessment proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 proposal, until such time.
I have heard Sri.K.Manoj Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Thushara James, the learned Senior Government Pleader.
Smt.Thushara James submitted that if the petitioner only requires Ext.P4 Revision to be taken up and disposed of by the third respondent, the same can be done within a period of one month. She prayed that, therefore, this writ petition be ordered on such terms.
Taking note of the afore submissions, I allow this writ petition and direct the third respondent to take up Ext.P4
WP(C) NO. 20484 OF 2021 3 statutory Revision petition of the petitioner and dispose it of, after affording an opportunity of being heard to them; thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Needless to say, until such time as the afore exercise is completed and the resultant order communicated to the petitioner, all further action pursuant to Ext.P3 proposal shall stand deferred. At this time, after I dictated this part of the judgment, the learned Senior Government Pleader pointed out that the petitioner has also filed Ext.P4(a) application for condonation of delay and Ext.P4(b) application for stay along with Ext.P4 Revision. I, therefore, further direct the third respondent to consider these applications also along with the Revision and to issue appropriate orders thereon in a consolidated manner. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu
WP(C) NO. 20484 OF 2021 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20484/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1OF THE REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2008-09 DATED 29-06- 2018 Exhibit P2OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29-01-2020 Exhibit P3OF THE NOTICE DATED 03-04-2020 Exhibit P4OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 01-10-2020 Exhibit P4(a)OF THE DELAY PETITION DATED 01-10-2020 Exhibit P4(b)OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 01- 10-2020 Exhibit P5OF THE NOTICE DATED 18-09-2021 Exhibit P6OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 24-09-2021 Exhibit P7OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12-08- 2021 IN WP(C) NO. 16572/2021
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.