Alex Resorts And Hotels Pvt Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Officer (Lt) on 23 May, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 13799 of 2009(T)


1. ALEX RESORTS AND HOTELS PVT LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (LT),
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :23/05/2009

 O R D E R
                  P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
              ........................................................................
                    W.P.(C) No. 13799 OF 2009
              .........................................................................
                        Dated this the 23rd May, 2009


                                 J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved of Ext.P1 order passed by the

first respondent, whereby Ext.P2 order passed earlier under the

Amnesty Scheme was cancelled. The grievance of the petitioner

is that despite satisfying the entire amount payable by the

petitioner under the Scheme, remittance made earlier to an

extent of Rs.7,08,617/- pursuant to the interim order passed by

this Court, has not been reckoned or accounted, whereby the

petitioner was wrongly called upon to satisfy the said deficit as

well, so as to have the benefit, which is cited as the reason while

passing Ext.P1 order cancelling the benefit provided under

Ext.P2.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. This

Court finds that the reasoning given by the first respondent for

cancelling Ext.P2 does not appear to be correct or sustainable, in

W.P.(C) No. 13799 OF 2009
2

view of the admitted extent of liability cast upon the petitioner to

have the benefit of Amnesty Scheme as provided under Ext. P2.

3. In the said circumstances, the impugned order is set

aside. The first respondent is hereby directed to consider the

matter afresh and pass appropriate orders, of course, taking

into account the remittance already made by the petitioner as

mentioned herein before and also affording an opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

lk