High Court Kerala High Court

Jyothi Laboratories Limited vs Assistant … on 10 January, 2011

Kerala High Court
Jyothi Laboratories Limited vs Assistant … on 10 January, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 642 of 2011(E)


1. JYOTHI LABORATORIES LIMITED,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(ASSESSMENT)
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS)

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.RAGHUNATH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :10/01/2011

 O R D E R
                     C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
                  -------------------------------------------
                     W.P.(C).No.642 of 2011
                  -------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 10th day of January, 2011

                          J U D G M E N T

———————-

With respect to the year 2008-09, assessment was

completed against the petitioner as per Ext.P1 order. Aggrieved

by Ext.P1 the petitioner had filed statutory appeal before the 3rd

respondent, as per Ext.P2. Stay petition as per Ext.P3 was also

filed along with the appeal. It is stated that the 3rd respondent

has not yet considered either the appeal or the stay application.

Grievance of the petitioner is that recovery steps are being

proceeded against, for realising the amount of tax in dispute, on

issuing revenue recovery notice as per Ext.P4, without

considering pendency of the appeal. Hence the petitioner seeks

direction to keep in abeyance the recovery steps till disposal of

the appeal.

2. It is submitted that the only dispute in the appeal

pertains to the rate of tax applicable to the products, “Ujala

Supreme” and “Ujala Stiff & Shine” dealt with by the petitioner.

It is further submitted that the question is now pending

consideration in various other cases filed by the manufacturer

as well as other dealers, awaiting decision on the issue from the

Hon’ble Supreme Court and from this court. It is pointed out

that this court had granted stay in many other cases, against

WP(C).642/11 2

recovery of the tax amounts in dispute, pending disposal of such

appeals, subject to condition of payment of 1/3rd of the amounts

due. Hence I am of the opinion that a similar relief can be

granted in this case also.

3. In the result, the 3rd respondent is directed to

consider and dispose of Ext.P2 appeal, after affording an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at

any rate within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment.

4. Realisation of amounts covered under Ext.P1 order,

which is now sought to be recovered through Ext.P4 revenue

recovery notice, shall be kept in abeyance till such time the

appeal is disposed of as directed above, subject to condition of

the petitioner remitting 1/3rd of the tax amount in dispute and

also furnishing security bond for the balance amount, within two

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

5. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment

before the 3rd respondent.

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

okb