Jessy Alexander vs Sales Tax Officer on 28 January, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 3134 of 2008(W)


1. JESSY ALEXANDER, W/O. M.A.ALEXANDER,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SALES TAX OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. TAHSILDAR (RR),

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :28/01/2008

 O R D E R
                     ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                    ===============
                 W.P.(C) NO. 3134 OF 2008 W
               =====================

          Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008

                         J U D G M E N T

Petitioner submits that his was an S.S.I. Unit engaged in

the manufacture of Mineral Water and that in view of Ext.P2

Government Order, it was entitled to the benefit of exemption.

Though Ext.P2 notification was withdrawn by Ext.P3, that was set

aside by Ext.P4 judgment of this court. Thus, the petitioner still

continues to be entitled to the benefit of exemption, submits the

learned counsel. However, denying the benefit of exemption, the

assessment orders for the year 1998-99 and 1999-2000 were

revised by Exts. P5 and P6 and thereupon the petitioner filed

Exts. P7 and P8 applications under Section 43 of the KGST Act

seeking rectification of the revised assessment orders. Despite

the pendency of the applications for rectification, revenue

recovery proceedings continued and by Ext.P9 landed property

WPC 3134/08
:2 :

mentioned therein is scheduled to be auctioned today. It is in

this background, the writ petition has been filed.

2. Admittedly, applications for rectification filed by the

petitioner, produced as Exts. P7 and P8, are pending

consideration of the 1st respondent and the claim raised by the

petitioner is for the benefit of exemption provided for in Ext.P2.

3. In view of the pendency of the applications for

rectification, it is only proper that these applications are decided

before any coercive action is taken for realising the tax due under

Exts.P5 and P6.

4. In view of the above, I dispose of this writ petition

itself directing that the 1st respondent shall consider and take a

decision on Exts. P7 and P8 with notice to the petitioner and as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate within eight weeks of

production of a copy of this judgment.

In the meanwhile, until decision is taken as above, further

proceedings pursuant to Ext.P9 will stand stayed.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

Rp