R.Rajesh Kumar vs. The State Tax Officer (Investigation Branch)
Original PDF →WP(C) NO. 28009 OF 2019 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 28009 OF 2019 PETITIONER: R.RAJESH KUMAR AGED 40 YEARS S/O. A.K.RAJAMANIKKAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S. A.K.R. TRADERS, OLIPPARA, KAIRADY, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER (INVESTIGATION BRANCH) STATE GST DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2 THE DEPUTYC OMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678 001. 3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 28009 OF 2019 2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J =========================== W.P.(C) No.28009 of 2019 --------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September, 2021 JUDGMENT
Petitioner is an assesseee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Faced with Ext.P1 assessment order for the assessment year 2013-2014, petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal before the 2nd respondent.
Now the petitioner complains that the appellate authority, instead of numbering the appeal, has kept
the appeal aside as defective and issued Ext.P3 notice alleging that the petitioner has not deposited 1% of the disputed tax as court fee due to the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund and also cautioned that the appeal will be rejected for default, if the said amount is not deposited.
According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner needs to pay only 0.5% of the disputed amount because of the relevant notification and the
WP(C) NO. 28009 OF 2019 3 judgment of this Court in O.P.(Tax) No.2/2017. 4. I have heard Adv.Harisankar V.Menon, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel, and have also perused the records.
It is true that the statute now mandates the amount to be paid to the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund as 1% of the disputed tax amount, by virtue of the amendment dated 07.04.2016. This Court has held, through series of judgments, that the amendment is prospective.
In view of the judgment in O.P.(Tax) No.2/2017, it will suffice if the petitioner remits 0.5% of the disputed tax to the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund and also furnishes a personal bond without sureties before the Assessing Authority undertaking to pay the balance amount due under the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund, if the issue is ultimately found against the petitioner. On furnishing the bond as directed above and on payment of 0.5% of the disputed tax to the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund (if not already paid) within four weeks from today, the appellate authority shall
WP(C) NO. 28009 OF 2019 4 number the appeal and consider the same on merits, in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE AMV/20/09//2021
WP(C) NO. 28009 OF 2019 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28009/2019 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATED 27.4.2019. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR 2013-14 DATED 24.5.2019. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF DEFECT NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.9.2019. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF SRO NO.315/2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 7.4.2016. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.27245/19 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 15.10.2019. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL //// PA TO JUDGE
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.