IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29667 of 2010(G)
1. NIRAPPUKATTIL TIMBERS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :11/10/2010
O R D E R
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J
------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 29667 OF 2010
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of October, 2010
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is a registered dealer under the Kerala
General Sales Tax Act borne on the files of the
respondent. With respect to the year 2001-02, the
assessment finalised earlier was modified through Ext.P1
order of the appellate tribunal. Ext.P4 is the modified
order of assessment issued on the basis of Ext.P1. It is
mentioned in Ext.P4 that the dealer had failed to
establish his claim regarding discrepancies in the
opening stock and therefore he is not entitled for any
deduction on the tax paid on the sale of timber during the
previous years.
2. Meanwhile, the amount of tax in arrears with
respect to various years was allowed to be settled under
the Amnesty scheme, as per Ext.P2. The petitioner had
not complied with the payments as stipulated in Ext.P2.
2
WP(C) No. 29667/2010
According to the petitioner the benefit under Ext.P2 was not
availed only because of pendency of the appeal before the
Tribunal. In this regard petitioner had filed WP(C)
4380/2010 in which a direction was issued to consider the
application under the Amnesty Scheme and to issue orders.
It was made clear that the recovery will be subject to
decision which will be taken on the petition seeking
settlement under the Amnesty scheme. On the basis of
directions contained in Ext.P5, the Ext.P6 order was issued.
It is the contention of the petitioner that the amount
stipulated in Ext.P6 is not correct since tax paid during the
previous years was not given credit to. Therefore the
petitioner submitted Ext.P7 application before the first
respondent seeking rectification of the order issued under
Ext.P6.
3. Heard learned Government Pleader appearing on
behalf of the respondent. It is disputed that any amount is
due for credit with respect to the previous years. It is
3
WP(C) No. 29667/2010
pointed out that such a claim was declined by virtue of
Ext.P4 order. However it is submitted that Ext.P7
application will be considered by the authority concerned
and appropriate decision will be taken thereof.
4. Under the above circumstances, the Writ Petition
is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and
pass orders on Ext.P7, after affording an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest possible, at any rate
within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
5. Till such time orders are passed by the
respondent, the recovery of amounts due under Ext.P4 shall
be kept in abeyance.
6. It is made clear that in view of the direction
issued as above, time for payment stipulated in Ext.P6 shall
be rescheduled by the first respondent.
C.K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
dnc