BharatTaxGST

The Asst.Commissioner Of State Tax (Works Contract) vs. Kammathukutty P.K.

Original PDF →
RP/957/2020HC KeralaGSTCNR KLHC01066119202020 January 2021Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL3 pages

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Heard together (2 matters)

RP.No.957 OF 2020
WP(C) 2528/2020

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 30TH POUSHA, 1942 RP.No.957 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 2528/2020 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 2528/2020(M) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C): 1 THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (WORKS CONTRACT) STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, TAX TOWER, 2ND FLOOR, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 002 2 THE STATE TAX OFFICER (WORKS CONTRACT) STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, 2ND FLOOR, TAX TOWER, 2ND FLOOR, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 002 3 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPREENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4 SECRETARY, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 5 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673 639 6 VILLAGE OFFICER, KEEZHUPARAMBA VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673 639 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENTS: KAMMATHUKUTTY P.K. PROPRIETOR, P K K CONSTRUCTIONS, PEZHUNGADAN, KOLATHIKKEL, KEEZHUMPARAMBIL POST, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673 639 GP SMT JASMINE MM THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RP.No.957 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 2528/2020 2

Dated this the 20th day of January 2021 C.M.Appl.No.1/20 for condonation of delay in filing this review petition is allowed. The prayer in the application is that there is an error apparent on the face of record as the notices issued by the authorities were not under Section 25(1) for the assessment year 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 which though expired on 31.03.2014, 31.03.2015 and 31.03.2015, but, it was also under the provisions of Section 42(3) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. Therefore, the writ petition should not have been allowed by relying upon the ratio culled out in Baiju A.A and others v. State Tax Officer and others [2020(1) KHC 39]. I am afraid that the aforementioned argument would not have any force as this Court, in the judgment dated 23.10.2020 in W.P(C).28825/14 has already taken note of the provisions of Section 42(3) and allowed the matter having found both the notices, under Section 25(1) and section 42(3)not within the period of limitation. I do not find any error apparent on record in RP.No.957 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 2528/2020 3 view of the decision rendered in the aforesaid judgment. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. AMIT RAWAL JUDGE nak

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.