Sabu Puthen Veedu vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. WEDNE AY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1945 WA NO. 732 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 07/03/2023 IN WP(C) 7778/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/S: SABU PUTHEN VEEDU AGED 51 YEARS SRI. SABU PUTHEN VEEDU, AMRITHA AGENCIES, 32/13, CHUNNAMBUTHARA, VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678012 BY ADVS. ELDHO MATHEW RASMI NAIR T. RESPONDENT/S: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, SECOND CIRCLE, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001 OTHER PRESENT: MM JASMINE THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
:2: W..A.732/2023 A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ …................................................... W.A.No.732 of 2023 ….............................................................. Dated this the 5th day of April, 2023 JUDGMENT Mohammed Nias.C.P., J. This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition filed by the appellant.
The writ petitioner challenged Ext.P2 demand which was based on Ext.P1 order. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment found that the petitioner has not chosen to exhaust the statutory remedies available against Ext.P2, and the writ petition was filed after more than one year, as the order is dated 20.12.2021. Thus having failed to prefer the statutory remedies available, the petitioner was found not entitled to invoke juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file appropriate applications permissible by law before appropriate Forum.
Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that
:3: W..A.732/2023 the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the matter on merits. On going through the writ petition and the impugned judgment, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The petitioner did not avail himself of the alternate remedies and chose to wait for one year to file the writ petition. Faced with the above situation, the learned counsel for the appellant sought an installment facility to wipe off the demand in Ext.P2. We find that the said request is reasonable. We accordingly direct the petitioner to pay off the entire amount due under Ext.P2 in six equal successive monthly installments commencing from 20th April 2023. It is also made clear that if the petitioner makes one default of the above condition, he will lose the benefit of this judgment, and the respondents will be free to proceed in accordance with law for recovery of the entire amount claimed in Ext P2. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JUDGE al/- 5.4..2023..
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.