Amco Batteries Limited vs. The Assistant State Tax Officer
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 20TH POUSHA, 1941 WP(C).No.35924 OF 2019(M) PETITIONER: AMCO BATTERIES LIMITED KERALA BRANCH OFFICE, 10/220 ALUM VETTUVAZHY, KOORKENCHERRY, THRISSUR-680007, REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MANOJ U, AGED 45, S/O. M KALIDASAN. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT: THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER SURVEILLANCE SQUAD, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, KERALA WAYANAD AT SULTHAN BANTHERY-673592. SMT.JASMINE.M.M, GOVT.PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.35924 OF 2019(M) 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. =========================== W.P(C) No.35924 of 2019 =========================== Dated this the 10th day of January, 2020 JUDGMENT The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: “i. to call for the records leading to Exhibit P1 and P2 and direct the respondent to issue the order in Original No OR/SS/2018-19/22 dated 21.9.2018 passed against the petitioner by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order. ii. to grant such other reliefs or issue such other directions in favour of the petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Heard Smt.M.Shajna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.M.M.Jasmine, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.
Smt.M.M.Jasmine, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that the original of the impugned order dated 21.09.2018 was actually served by the department on transporter concerned. Smt.M.Shajna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the detained goods and the originals should have been served on the owner, as per
WP(C).No.35924 OF 2019(M) 3 Sec.129 (6) of the Goods and Services Act, 2017 and that otherwise in case, the petitioner is to apply for the certified copy of the impugned order, time may run against the petitioner and there may be delay involved in filing the statutory appeal.
Taking note of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is ordered that the petitioner may make a proper application for grant of certified copy of the impugned order dated 21.09.2018 before the respondent, who will thereupon furnish a certified copy of the said impugned order dated 21.09.2018, without any delay, preferably within a period of one week from the date of submission of the application. However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and as much as the original of the order has been served not on the petitioner, who is the owner of the goods, but on the transporter, it is ordered that the period of limitation may be computed from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. Provided the petitioner makes application for grant of certified copy within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
WP(C).No.35924 OF 2019(M) 4 With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of. ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE vgd
WP(C).No.35924 OF 2019(M) 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE OBJECTION DATED 20.9.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2OF THE PAYMENT RECEIPT DATED 25.09.2018 OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER.
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.