M/S. Chirakekkaran Glass House (P) LTD. vs. State Tax Officer
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1942 WA.No.895 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 12763/2020(U) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANTS: M/S. CHIRAKEKKARAN GLASS HOUSE (P) LTD. DOOR NO. 13/555, SAW MILL ROAD, KOORKENCHERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 007, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SUNNY ANTO.C. BY ADVS. SRI.K.J.ABRAHAM SRI.NIKHIL JOHN RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE TAX OFFICER FORMALLY, INTELLIGENCE OFFICER), SQUAD NO. 11, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, TAX COMPLEX, POOTHOLE P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 004. 2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, COMMERCIAL TAX COMPLEX, POOTHOLE P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 004. 3 COMMISSIONER,DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, COMMERCIAL TAX COMPLEX, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 002. OTHER PRESENT: SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Writ Appeal No.895/2020 ::2:: J U D G M E N T Dated this the 13th day of July, 2020 Vinod Chandran, J The appeal is filed against the refusal of the learned Single Judge to exercise discretion under Article 226 for reason of efficacious alternative statutory remedies. We do not find any reason to interfere with the refusal to exercise discretion in the context of the available alternative remedies merely for reason that the original penalty order issued on the basis of an inspection was set aside in a statutory revision by the 3rd respondent and remanded for fresh consideration. The assessee would necessarily have to avail of the statutory remedies.
However, the learned Counsel points out that the appellant has been directed to file an
Writ Appeal No.895/2020 ::3:: appeal before the Appellate Tribunal within a period of seven days. In fact, the appeal is to be filed before the First Appellate Authority Deputy Commissioner(Appeals), Ernakulam. We make it clear that the appeal would be filed before the statutory authority as provided under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 within one month from today.
Yet another apprehension expressed by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the very same person who passed the impugned order is now promoted and posted as the appellate authority. The 3rd respondent Commissioner would, on an appeal being filed, immediately constitute another Deputy Commissioner as the appellate authority for consideration of this particular appeal, if the very same person who passed the impugned order is now the Appellate Commissioner.
It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that 20% of the tax has
Writ Appeal No.895/2020 ::4:: already been remitted and in view of the provisions under the KVAT Act, there can be no recovery made. The appellant would be entitled to raise that contention before the First Appellate Authority or the recovery Officer if any such recovery is attempted. We make it clear that no recovery shall be made for a period of one month, the period we have granted for the purpose of filing the statutory appeal. Writ appeal is disposed of. K. Vinod Chandran,Judge T.R Ravi, Judge jma
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.