Sify Technologies Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner Of State Tax
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P2 order passed by the 1st respondent, rejecting an application preferred by him for condonation of delay in filing returns wherein he had raised the claim for input tax credit. It is seen from Ext.P2 order of the respondents that the refusal to consider the delay condonation application was on account of Ext.P4 order having already been passed by the assessing authority, rejecting an application for refund preferred by the petitioner. The said authority had rejected the application for refund on finding that the returns claiming the input tax credit had not been filed within time.
Probably on account of the fact that Ext.P4 order of the assessing authority had not been carried in appeal by the petitioner, the 1st respondent, when considering the delay condonation application preferred by the petitioner, passed Ext.P2 order refusing to condone the delay.
When the matter came up for admission before this Court, and on a request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he was permitted to prefer an appeal against Ext.P4 order of the Assessing Officer so as to keep the issue of belated filing of return and condonation thereof alive. The petitioner has accordingly prefered Ext.P5 appeal before the Joint Commissioner [Appeals], Ernakulam, who is suo motu impleaded as the additional 3rd respondent in the Writ Petition.
Taking note of the above situation and finding that if the 1st respondent considers the delay condonation application and finds valid reasons to condone the delay in filing returns, the petitioner would be in a position to claim the input tax credit claimed in the said returns, I deem it appropriate to dispose the Writ Petition with the following directions: i. Ext.P2 order of the 1st respondent is quashed. ii. The 1st respondent shall consider the delay condonation application filed by the petitioner afresh within three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner, and taking note of the filing of Ext.P5 appeal against Ext.P4 order before the additional 3rd respondent. iii. On the 1st respondent passing fresh orders as directed and communicating the same to the petitioner, the petitioner shall forthwith produce the same before the additional 3rd respondent, who shall then consider Ext.P5 appeal and pass orders thereon based on the orders passed by the 1st respondent on the delay condonation application as directed. The 1st respondent shall pass orders in Ext.P5 appeal within three weeks after the date of receipt of the order of the 1st respondent and after hearing the petitioner. iv. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition as well as a copy of this judgment before the first and third respondents for further action. The Writ Petition is disposed as above. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE mns/17.9.2020 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.02.2020, FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR CONDONING DELAY IN FILING APPLICATION IN FORM NO.21CC FOR REFUND OF INPUT TAX. EXHIBIT P2OF THE ORDER NO.C3-636/2020 DATED 13.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3OF THE APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION DATED 21.07.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4OF THE ORDER NO. 32071860955/2011-12 DATED 28.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN FORM NO.29 DATED 26TH AUGUST, 2020 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //// P.A TO JUDGE
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.