High Court Kerala High Court

M.M.Muhammed Kunju vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 4 December, 2008

Kerala High Court
M.M.Muhammed Kunju vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 4 December, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 35868 of 2008(T)


1. M.M.MUHAMMED KUNJU, PROPRIETOR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KUNDARA.
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB),

3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BOBBY JOHN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

 Dated :04/12/2008

 O R D E R
                                   K.M.JOSEPH, J.
                        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                            WP.(C) No.35868 of 2008
                        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                     Dated this the 4th day of December, 2008

                                      JUDGMENT

Petitioner seeks a direction to consider jurisdictional issue

raised in Ext.P4 reply before proceeding further with Ext.P2 notice and to

keep in abeyance further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 notice. Ext.P2 is a

notice issued under Section 19C of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act.

Petitioner had approached this court earlier and obtained Ext.P3 judgment.

Therein this court had made it clear that when a party raised an objection

particularly regarding jurisdiction, it is the bounden duty of the officer to

apply his mind to every objection with an open mind and recall the notice, if

it is found not warranted on the facts and the law applicable. The writ

petition was disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and take a

decision on the objection filed by the petitioner after hearing the petitioner.

Thereafter, it is the case of the petitioner that without deciding the issue of

jurisdiction, the officer has proceeded to examine Sri. Madhusoodanan

Pillai and the crucial question as to the jurisdiction will remain unanswered

and he is proceeding with the matter.

2. Learned Government Pleader justifies the procedure.

WPC.35868/2008. 2

3. When petitioner had challenged Ext.P2 notice, which

culminated in Ext.P3 judgment, where this court had directed the first

respondent to consider and take a decision on the objection filed by the

petitioner, it is not as if a final decision has been taken by the officer,

necessarily, before the officer takes a decision in the matter, it goes without

saying that the officer will have to consider the question of jurisdiction to

proceed with the matter under Section 19C. In fact this is the submission of

the learned Government Pleader also.

Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed

of .

(K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE)

sb