High Court Kerala High Court

M/S. Mar Gregorios Orthodox … vs The Deputy Commissioner on 31 October, 2008

Kerala High Court
M/S. Mar Gregorios Orthodox … vs The Deputy Commissioner on 31 October, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 30754 of 2008(J)


1. M/S. MAR GREGORIOS ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DY.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),

3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC & LT)

4. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB)

5. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

 Dated :31/10/2008

 O R D E R
                         K. M. JOSEPH, J.
                  --------------------------------------
                   W.P.C. NO. 30754 OF 2008 J
                  --------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 31st October, 2008

                            JUDGMENT

Petitioners seek a direction to the first respondent to

dispose of Exts.P2 and P2(a) Appeals and to declare their

eligibility to concessional rate of tax. Heard the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government

Pleader. The chief complaint of the petitioners is that though

the petitioners filed a delay condonation petition invoking

Section 20A of the KVAT Act, the first respondent has

transferred the Appeal files along with Exts.P3 and P3(a) early

hearing petitions to the second respondent. This is stated to be

illegal. Learned Government Pleader submits that the first

respondent transferred the files to the second respondent, as

Exts.P2 and P2(a) are filed as Appeals. A perusal of Exts.P2

and P2(a) as also the submissions in the Writ Petition would also

show that they are actually filed as Appeals. Learned counsel

for the petitioners owns up the mistake and he submits that they

WPC.30754/08 J 2

ought to have been filed as applications. Learned Government

Pleader, however, submits on instructions that the first

respondent will call back Exts.P2 and P2(a) from the second

respondent and will take a decision thereon in accordance with

law treating them as applications under Section 20A of the Act.

Recording the said submission of the learned Government

Pleader, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first

respondent to take a decision on Exts. P2 and P2(a) in

accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date

of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

Sd/=
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE

kbk.

// True Copy //

PS to Judge