K.Unnikrishnan vs The Sales Tax Officer on 15 September, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 28472 of 2006(M)


1. K.UNNIKRISHNAN, KUNDIL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SALES TAX OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

3. THE TAHSILDAR,

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

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

 Dated :15/09/2010

 O R D E R
                     P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
                 = = = = = = = = == = = = == = = = = = =
                          W.P.(C) No. 28472 OF 2006
                 = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = =
         DATED THIS, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010.


                                 J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:

i. to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus
or any other appropriate writ or order directing the
3rd respondent to permit the petitioner to remit the
tax, surcharge and interest demanded in Ext.P7
letter in 10 equal monthly installments;

ii. to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus
or any other appropriate writ or order directing the
3rd respondent to keep in abeyance all further
proceedings to collect the penalty imposed in
Ext.P2 order passed by the 1st respondent until
Ext.P4 application for revision is disposed of by
the 2nd respondent ;

iii. to pass such other orders as this
Hon’ble court deems justified in the facts and
circumstances of the case, and

to award cost of this proceedings to the
petitioner.”

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. Going by the first

prayer, the only relief sought for is to permit the petitioner to clear the

liability under Ext.P7 by way of ten equal monthly instalments. The writ

petition being dated 25.10.1996, the said prayer is no more required to be

considered or entertained as the time is already over by nearly four years.

3. With regard to the second prayer, the learned Government Pleader

WP(C) 28472/2006 2

submits that there is no chance for Ext.P4 revision to be pending as on date.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer of the petitioner

will stand confined to a chance to avail the benefit of the ‘amnesty scheme’

declared by the Government, which is available till 31.12.2010, if there is

any outstanding liability in connection with the cause of action projected in

the writ petition.

In the above circumstance, the writ petition is disposed of without

prejudice to the right and liberties of the petitioner to avail the benefit of the

amnesty scheme, if any liability is subsisting and to have the same settled in

accordance with the terms of the scheme.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
(JUDGE)

KNC/-