M.Jalaludeen vs. The Commercial Tax Officer-1
Facts
The petitioner, M. Jalaludeen, proprietor of Shalimar Furniture, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. This notice demanded deposit of an amount, failing which further action would be taken. The petitioner had previously filed an appeal against an assessment order dated 30.07.2014 under the erstwhile Kerala Value Added Tax Act regime. This appeal was dismissed on 29.11.2018. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal on 19.10.2019, pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14, along with an interim stay application and a condonation of delay application for 256 days. The Revenue authorities are the respondents.
Held
The Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, directed the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) (2nd respondent) to decide the applications seeking condonation of delay of 256 days for filing the appeal pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14. This decision is to be made in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Court also granted an interim stay of the notice under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act until the disposal of the delay and stay applications. The applications are to be decided within 45 days from the receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The interim stay is effective only until the disposal of the applications for delay and stay.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner's application for condonation of delay of 256 days in filing the second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal should be considered and decided in accordance with law? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that a direction should be given to the Tribunal to hear the application for stay and condonation of delay. The petitioner sought satisfaction if an appropriate direction was issued by the Court. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue or State respondents.
Sections Cited
Section 7, Section 34
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL TUE AY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.8315 OF 2020(L) PETITIONER: M.JALALUDEEN, AGED 50 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, SHALIMAR FURNITURE, K. P. ROAD, KAYAMKULAM P. O. - 690 502, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.H.RIYAS RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KAYAMKULAM P. O., ALAPPUZHA - 690 502. 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SGST DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION P. O., PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645. 3 THE KVAT, AIT AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, TAX COMPLEX, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 4 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KARTHIKAPALLI, HARIPAD TEMPLE ROAD, HARIPAD P. O., ALAPPUZHA - 690 514. OTHER PRESENT: GP DR THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.8315 OF 2020 -2- JUDGMENT The petitioner, preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as an assessee under the erstwhile Kerala Value Added Tax Act regime whereby against the order of assessment dated 30.07.2014, Ext.P1 preferred an appeal. The aforem
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.