IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18688 of 2009(E)
1. KAIRALY WELFARE AND CHARITABLE WOMENS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SALES TAX OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM.
... Respondent
2. APPELLATE ASST.COMMISSIONER,
For Petitioner :SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :03/07/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
........................................................................
W.P.(C) No.18688 OF 2009
.........................................................................
Dated this the 3rd July, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The assessment order in respect of the assessment year
2003-04 was challenged by the petitioner by filing the appeal
-STA No.1321 of 2006 before the second respondent. However,
the same happened to be rejected for non-payment of the
‘court fee’ towards the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund, as borne by
Ext. P3, which has been subjected to challenge in the present
Writ Petition.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that non-payment of requisite court fee was never
wilful, but only due to an inadvertent omission. There is also a
case for the petitioner that the defect noted in this regard was
not properly communicated to the petitioner and that no
sufficient opportunity was obtained for curing the same.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who
W.P.(C) No.18688 OF 2009
2
submits that absolutely no fault can be put on the shoulders of
the appellate authority, particularly in view of the fact that the
appeal proceedings were presented through the representative of
the petitioner herein and that the default, omission or lapse, if
at all, can only be on the part of the said representative, for
whose acts and deeds, none other than the petitioner can be
held as liable .
4. However, this Court does not find it necessary to
conduct a hair split analysis as to the actual turn of events,
particularly in view of the submission made from the part of the
petitioner that he is ready and willing to remit the requisite court
fee and that the matter might be ordered to be considered on
merits especially in view of the stakes involved.
5. After considering the facts and circumstances, Ext. P3
impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is directed to remit
the requisite court fee within ten days. On such an event, the
appeal preferred by the petitioner shall be considered afresh and
decided on merits, in accordance with law, of course, after giving
an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This shall be finalised
W.P.(C) No.18688 OF 2009
3
as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk