High Court Kerala High Court

Jyothy Laboratories Limited vs Assistant Commissioner … on 23 December, 2010

Kerala High Court
Jyothy Laboratories Limited vs Assistant Commissioner … on 23 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 38351 of 2010(T)


1. JYOTHY LABORATORIES LIMITED
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT)
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.RAGHUNATH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM

 Dated :23/12/2010

 O R D E R
                 C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.

               -----------------------------------------
               W.P.(C).Nos.38351 of 2010
               -----------------------------------------

        Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2010


                      J U D G M E N T

———————-

Aggrieved by assessment for the month of

September 2010, completed against the petitioner as

per Ext.P1 order, the petitioner had filed statutory

appeal before the 3rd respondent, as per Ext.P2. Stay

petition as per Ext.P3 was also filed along with the

appeal. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent has not

yet considered either the appeal or the stay application.

Grievance of the petitioner is that recovery steps are

now being proceeded against for realising the amount

in dispute, on issuing revenue recovery notice as per

Ext.P4, without considering pendency of the appeal.

Hence the petitioner seeks direction to keep in

abeyance the recovery steps till the disposal of the

appeal.

2. It is submitted that the only dispute in the

W.P.(C).38351/10-T -2-

appeal pertains to rate of tax applicable for the products,

“Ujala Supreme” and “Ujala Stiff & Shine” dealt with by the

petitioner. It is further submitted that the question is now

pending decision in various other cases filed by the

manufacturer as well as other dealers, awaiting decision on

the issue from the Hon’ble Supreme Court and from this

court. It is pointed out that this court had granted stay in

many other cases, against recovery of the tax amounts in

dispute, pending disposal of such appeals, on condition of

payment of 1/3rd of the amounts. Hence I am of the opinion

that a similar relief can be granted in this case also.

3. In the result the 3rd respondent is directed to

consider and dispose of Ext.P2 appeal, after affording an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as

possible, at any rate within a period of 3 months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

4. Realisation of amounts covered under Ext.P1

order, which is now sought to be recovered through Ext.P4

notice, shall be kept in abeyance, on condition of the

W.P.(C).38351/10-T -3-

petitioner remitting 1/3rd of the tax amount in dispute and

also on furnishing security for the balance amount, within

two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

Judgment.

5. The petitioner will produce a copy of this

judgment before the 3rd respondent.

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

okb