M/S.Moon Timber Suppliers vs Commercial Tax Officer on 2 June, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 16546 of 2010(P)


1. M/S.MOON TIMBER SUPPLIERS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.I.SAGEER

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :02/06/2010

 O R D E R
                    P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
                   ---------------------------
                       W.P(C) No.16546 of 2010-P
                  ----------------------------
                Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2010.

                           J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved of Ext.P3 notice dated 25.5.2010,

whereby the petitioner has been directed to satisfy a further sum of

Rs.7,21,082/- towards the tax payable within 24 hours; lest penal

action under 67 should be initiated.

2. The petitioner, who is doing business in Plywood,

Veneer, Packing Case and Timber, is a registered dealer under the

KVAT Act, as borne by Ext.P1 certificate. The petitioner had filed

return in respect of April 2010 belatedly, as borne by Ext.P2

acknowledgment issued by the concerned respondent. While so, the

petitioner was served with Ext.P3 notice dated 25.5.2010 stating

that the 2nd proviso to Section 12(1) of the KVAT Act was amended

through the Finance Bill 2010 and as per the said amendment, the

dealers in Plywood, Packing Case and Veneers were excluded from

taking special rebate for the goods purchased under Section 6(2)

and consumed or resold in the month itself.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the lapse on the

part of the petitioner was due to an inadvertent mistake and that the

W.P(C) No.16546 of 2010-P 2

time stipulated in Ext.P3 to have the liability satisfied ‘within 24

hours’ is an unconscionable and arbitrary one. With regard to the

contention of the petitioner is that the respondent is not issuing

‘delivery notes’, the same is strongly rebutted from the part of the

respondent, stating that there is absolutely no basis for such

allegation and that sufficient delivery notes are being issued without

any delay. The submission is recorded.

4. Considering the submissions made from either side and

also taking note of the persuasive submission made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that the only relief pressed for, is for some

breathing time to clear the liability and that the petitioner does not

have any challenge as to the merits, the petitioner is directed to

clear the liability mentioned in Ext.P3 within ten days from today. It

is made clear that, if the petitioner fails to satisfy the requirement as

above, the respondent will be free to proceed with further steps for

realisation of the due amount in a lump sum.

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

                                P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
ab                                         JUDGE