Shahul Hameed vs. The Deputy Tahsildar (Rr), Chittur Taluk
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
P1 ASSESSMENT ORDER. EXHIBIT P2:OF THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT CANCELLING EXHIBIT P1 ASSESSMENT ORDER. EXHIBIT P3:OF THE NOTICE DATED 07.09.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT PROPOSING TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH FOR THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR 2011 - 2012 EXHIBIT P4:OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.09.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 EXHIBIT P5:OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 28.09.2017 IN FORM IV FOR PAYMENT OF RS. 4,12,245/- EXHIBIT P6:OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 28.09.2017 IN FORM. 24 FOR PAYMENT OF RS. 2,72,082/- BEING THE INTEREST ACCRUED. EXHIBIT P7:OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. EXHIBIT P8:OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 27.02.2018 FOR RS. 24,725/- FOR THE YEAR 2011 - 12 ON ACCOUNT OF CENTRAL SALES TAX ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9:OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 27.02.2018 FOR RS. 17,555/- TOWARDS INTEREST FOR THE YEAR 2011 - 12 ON ACCOUNT OF CENTRAL SALES TAX ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10:OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 09.03.2018 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 7 OF RR ACT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER DEMANDING A SUM OF RS. 6,93,475/- RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //// P.A. TO JUDGE SKS
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ================= W.P.(C.) No. 11273 of 2018 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of April, 2018 JUDGMENT Petitioner was a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act (the Act). He is in arrears of the tax payable under the said statute. Since the petitioner did not remit the tax due, proceedings have been initiated against him at the instance of the assessing authority under the Revenue Recovery Act. Ext.P10 is the notice issued to the petitioner in this connection under the Revenue Recovery Act. In terms of Ext.P10 notice, the petitioner was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 6,93,475/-. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P10 notice and hence the writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.
W.P.(C).No.11273 of 2018 : 2 :
When the matter was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner only prayed for indulgence to pay the amounts covered by Ext.P10 notice in instalments. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case as also the orders passed in similar and identical writ petitions, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to pay the amounts covered by Ext.P10 notice in six equal monthly instalments. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that if the petitioner commits default in remitting any one of the instalments, the entire amount demanded in terms of Ext.P10 notice can be realised in lump-sum. P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE SKS
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.