IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33095 of 2009(F)
1. B.SURENDRA DAS,S/O.LATE.BHANU PANICKER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),
3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER(AUDIT
4. THE SALES TAX OFFICER,NEYYATTINKARA,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.B.PRADEEP
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :08/12/2009
O R D E R
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No. 33095 of 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 8th day of December, 2009
J U D G M E N T
1. With respect to assessment completed for the
year 1993-94, in relation to a partnership firm to which the
petitioner herein is the managing partner, the Sales Tax
Appellate Tribunal has issued Ext.P1 order, wherein the
appeal is partly allowed and the assessing authority was
directed to finalise the assessment giving reduction in the
matter of additions made, as directed therein. Grievance of
the petitioner is that the assessing authority is not issuing
modified orders consequent to Ext.P1, inspite of the fact
that the Tribunal had passed Ext.P1 order as early as in
September 2005. Further grievance of the petitioner is that
the 4th respondent is not issuing clearance certificate for the
petitioner to avail Bank loan, on the ground that arrears
pertaining to the subsequent years is pending in appeal.
W.P.(C)No. 33095 of 2009
-2-
2. In a statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent
it is contented that the 4th respondent is not in a position to
issue the Non-Liability Certificate as requested, because the
petitioner is in huge arrears by way of tax and penalty with
respect to various years from 2003-04 to 2009-2010. Under
such circumstances, I am of the opinion that no direction
can be issued against the 4th respondent for granting
Non-Liability Certificate as requested by the petitioner.
3. However there is no justification for not modifying
the assessment, pursuant to Ext.P1. In this regard the
petitioner had submitted Exts.P2 & P3 requests before the
4th respondent. But the 4th respondent has not so far taken
any steps in this regard.
4. Under such circumstances, the writ petition is
disposed of directing the 4th respondent to consider and
pass appropriate orders on the basis of Exts.P2 & P3
requests, giving effect to Ext.P1 appellate order, as early as
W.P.(C)No. 33095 of 2009
-3-
possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
C.K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
shg/