Fathima vs. The Asst. Commissioner-I
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR THUR AY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 11244 OF 2021 PETITIONER: FATHIMA AGED 56 YEARS PROPRIETRESS M/S. STEEL HOUSE, M.C.ROAD, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER-I DEPT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, MATTANCHERRY AT ALUVA-683 101 2 THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SALES TAX COMPLEX, THEVARA, KOCHI-15, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST.SECRETARY 3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, BAZAR ROAD, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682 002 OTHER PRESENT: SPGP,TAX,SMT.THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.11244 OF 2021(E) 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 24th day of June 2021 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unfortunately, the learned Chartered Accountant for the petitioner could not attend the appeal which was fixed for hearing before the 2nd respondent and that has resulted in rejection of the appeal for want of representation on behalf of the petitioner/appellant. It is further argued that immediately thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application at Ext.P7 for condonation of delay, so also, Ext.P6 for restoration of appeal to the file of the 2nd respondent. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, during pendency of application for condonation of delay as well as the application for restoration, Ext.P7 and P6, the petitioner is served with the arrear notice at Ext.P8 calling upon him to deposit the amount due in accordance with the assessment order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the application for restoration is pending,
WP(C).No.11244 OF 2021(E) 3 the notice for depositing arrears may kindly be stayed.
The learned Government Pleader opposed the petition by contending that as of now, no appeal is pending and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be rejected.
I have considered the submissions so advanced. It is seen that the petitioner was prosecuting his appeal before the 2nd respondent, but inadvertently, his representative could not attend
the appeal on 17/01/2020 which has resulted in rejection of appeal for want of prosecution. As of now, the application for condonation of delay as well as for restoration of the appeal are pending before the 2nd respondent. Hence, in my considered opinion, the respondent ought not to have resorted to recovery of the amount due and payable as per the assessment order. Hence, the petition is disposed of with the following direction. The 2nd respondent is directed to decide the application for condonation of delay as well as the application for restoration of appeal bearing no. TA (VAT) No.618/2017 within a period of three months from WP(C).No.11244 OF 2021(E) 4 the date of communication of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Needless to mention that the petitioner to co-operate with the 2nd respondent in expeditious disposal of these applications. Till disposal of the application for condonation of delay and restoration of the appeal, the respondent should not continue with coercive steps for recovery of the amount determined under the assessment order in the light of arrear notice at Ext.P8. A.M.BADAR N JUDGE
WP(C).No.11244 OF 2021(E) 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11244/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURE EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF TA (VAT) NO.618/2017 OF THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF RESTORATION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
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.