E.C. Varghese vs Commercial Tax Officer on 22 May, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 6841 of 2009(A)


1. E.C. VARGHESE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,MANNARKKAD,
                       ...       Respondent

2. TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY)

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

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

 Dated :22/05/2009

 O R D E R
                  P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                      W.P. (C) No. 6841 of 2009
                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                Dated, this the 22nd day of May, 2009

                              JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment passed by the

first respondent, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 regular appeal before the

Deputy Commissioner; simultaneously approaching the Tribunal; which

culminated in Ext.P4 order passed by the Tribunal, whereby the

assessment for the year 1999 – 2000 was set aside and the matter was

remanded to the Assessing authority for fresh disposal, making it clear

that assessee had to comply with Section 17 (4), read with Rule 18 A of

KGST Rules, 1963. Despite the above order passed by the Appellate

Tribunal, it is stated that the first respondent has issued Ext.P7 order

(stated as based on the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on

the appeal preferred before him) which in turn has led to Ext.P5 and

Ext.P6 demands.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

impugned proceedings are not at all sustainable in law; particularly in

view of Ext.P4 order passed by the Tribunal which has not been taken

into consideration by the respondents. However, it is stated by the

petitioner in paragraph 8 of the Writ Petition that, after passing Ext.P4

order by the Tribunal, the petitioner did not pursue Ext.P3 appeal

preferred before the Deputy Commissioner as it had become

WP (C) No. 6841 of 2009
: 2 :

infructuous. The learned Government Pleader submits that there is no

deliberate attempt on the part of the first respondent to ignore Ext.P4

and that he was only acting in tune with the modified assessment order

passed by the Deputy Commissioner in the appeal preferred before

him. In any view of the matter, there cannot be any dispute that Ext.P1

assessment order is no more, having been set aside by the Tribunal as

per Ext. P4, remanding the matter for fresh consideration by the first

respondent; which step is yet to be pursued and implemented by the

first respondent.

3. In the above circumstance, the Writ Petition is disposed of,

directing the first respondent to finalise the proceedings as directed in

Ext.P4. The orders impugned in the Writ Petition are set aside. The

matter shall be finalised as above, by the first respondent, as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period two months.

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

kmd

WP (C) No. 6841 of 2009
: 3 :