Hindustan Petroleum Corporation … vs Assistant Commissioner on 23 July, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 20575 of 2009(N)


1. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

3. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA,

4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE),

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :23/07/2009

 O R D E R
                P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
                -----------------------------------------------
                       WP(C) NO. 20575 OF 2009
                        -----------------------------------
                 Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009


                              J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the course and

procedure followed by the the Appellate Authority in entertaining the appeal

preferred by the petitioner against Ext.P1 assessment conducted by the

Fast Track Team under Section 17(D), whereby, notwithstanding the merits

projected, the petitioner has been compelled to satisfy the entire tax liability

so as to avail the statutory remedy conferred by way of appeal. Learned

counsel for the the petitioner submits that, by virtue of the said stipulation,

the remedy by way of appeal conferred under the statute has been virtually

rendered meaningless and hence that the stipulation under Section 17D(5)

to satisfy the tax liability for availing the appellate remedy is rather

oppressive in nature. It is in the said circumstance, the petitioner has

chosen to challenge the virus of statutory prescription as well.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits

that no exception can be made in view of the law already declared by the

Division Bench of this Court in Viani Papers Vs. Fast Track Team in

[2008 (2) KLT 511] whereby the validity of the provision has been upheld.

WPC NO.20575/2009 2

It is also relevant to note that the Apex Court has recently considered the

issue as to the liability to pay the tax at the time of filing the appeal in Ravi

Gupta’s Case reported in [2009 (22) VST 529 SC] which bars the way of

the petitioner.

3. In the said circumstance, the legal position stands already

answered against the petitioner and as such, no interference is called for.

The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE

dnc