High Court Kerala High Court

Mangaly Timbers vs The Additional Sales Tax Officer on 25 September, 2007

Kerala High Court
Mangaly Timbers vs The Additional Sales Tax Officer on 25 September, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 2229 of 2007()


1. MANGALY TIMBERS, PALAKKAD.
                      ...  Petitioner
2. MANGALY INDUSTRIES,

                        Vs



1. THE ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR),

3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

4. THE MANAGER,

5. M/S.HILL WOOD INDUSTRIES,

6. M/S HILL WOOD IMPORTS AND EXPORTS PVT

7. M/S.NATIONAL TIMBER TRADERS,

8. P.AHAMMEDKUTTY AND COMPANY,

9. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),

10. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

11. THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE AND ANTI

12. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,

13. P.MOIDEEN, PROPRIETOR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :25/09/2007

 O R D E R
                       H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J.
             ...................................................................................
                                   W.A. No. 2229 OF 2007
              ...................................................................................
                         Dated this the 25th September , 2007


                                          J U D G M E N T

H.L. Dattu, C.J.:

Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in the Writ Petition (C)No. 33646 of 2005 are

the appellants in this appeal.

2. The appellants only question a portion of the order passed by the

learned single Judge while disposing of the Writ Petition, by order dated

06.06.2007. The offending portion, that is pointed out by the learned counsel

for the appellants, is extracted below:

“Petitioner’s specific case is that respondents 5 to 10 accounted

their unaccounted purchases as made from petitioner by using

Form 18 issued in the name of the petitioner without his

knowledge. Pursuant to enquiry on these allegations

under orders of this Court, petitioner’s claim was

substantially found to be correct.” (emphasis is supplied.)

3. Thereafter, the learned single Judge has directed the Commissioner

of Commercial Taxes to nominate a person as the appellate authority for

disposal of the appeals pending against the assessment orders for the

assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04.

4. We have heard Shri V.V. Asokan, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants, Shri K.B. Pradeep, learned Government Pleader for the Revenue

W.A. No. 2229 OF 2007

2

and Shri V.P. Sukumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the Writ

Petition/13th respondent herein.

5. Shri V.V. Asokan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants

would submit that while relegating the parties to the appellate authority, there

was no reason for the learned single Judge to have expressed an opinion on

the merits of the case pleaded by the petitioner as well as the respondents in

the Writ Petition. Therefore, the learned counsel requests us to expunge the

aforesaid observation made by the learned single Judge in the course of the

impugned order.

6. In the instant case, the petitioner/13th respondent herein was before

this court inter alia questioning the recovery proceedings initiated by the

assessing authority for realisation of the arrears of tax for the assessment

years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04. It was the case of the petitioner/13th

respondent herein before this court that respondents Nos. 5 to 10 in the Writ

Petition had misused his name and also Form 18 and therefore, he is in no

way liable for payment of arrears of tax for the aforesaid assessment years.

7. The learned single Judge has not gone into the merits of the case.

But, has directed the appellate authority to be nominated by the

Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to dispose of the appeals filed by the

petitioner and others against the assessment orders. In our opinion, while

doing so, there was no reason for the learned single Judge to have expressed

any opinion on the merits of the contentions canvassed by the petitioner in the

Writ Petition. Therefore, that portion of the order passed by the learned single

W.A. No. 2229 OF 2007

3

Judge , which would come in the way of respondents 6 and 7 in the Writ

Petition/appellants before us , requires to be expunged from the order passed

by the learned single Judge. Therefore, the following:

O R D E R

i) The Writ Appeal is disposed of.

ii) The offending portion in the order passed by the learned single

Judge is expunged.

iii) Now the appellate authority, to be nominated by the

Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, is directed to decide the appeals filed

by the petitioner in the Writ Petition/13th respondent herein, as well as others ,

on merits without reference to any one of the observations made by the

learned single Judge .

Ordered accordingly.

H.L. DATTU,
CHIEF JUSTICE.

K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.

lk