{"id":166428,"date":"2006-12-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-12-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-leonard-ashok-vs-commercial-tax-officer-i-on-20-december-2006"},"modified":"2017-11-29T21:06:03","modified_gmt":"2017-11-29T15:36:03","slug":"m-leonard-ashok-vs-commercial-tax-officer-i-on-20-december-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-leonard-ashok-vs-commercial-tax-officer-i-on-20-december-2006","title":{"rendered":"M.Leonard Ashok vs Commercial Tax Officer-I on 20 December, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M.Leonard Ashok vs Commercial Tax Officer-I on 20 December, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 18330 of 2006(F)\n\n\n1. M.LEONARD ASHOK,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-I, CHITTUR.\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,\n\n3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), CHITTUR,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.V.K.BALI\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR\n\n Dated :20\/12\/2006\n\n O R D E R\n                                   V.K.BALI, C.J.,\n\n                               KURIAN JOSEPH &\n\n                         K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JJ.\n\n                        -----------------------------------------\n\n                            W.P(C)No.18330  of  2006\n\n                        -----------------------------------------\n\n                 Dated this the 20th day of  December, 2006\n\n\n                                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Kurian Joseph,J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       What   is   the   court   fee   to   be   paid   in   a   writ   petition   challenging<\/p>\n
several   orders   on   the   same   set   of   facts   and   on   same   grounds   is   the<\/p>\n
question to be considered in this case.  The matter was placed before us<\/p>\n
by   reference   order   dated   28th  July   2006   of   the   Division   Bench.     It<\/p>\n
would be profitable to refer to the factual matrix in order to appreciate<\/p>\n
the issue.   Petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of the Kerala<\/p>\n
Value   Added   Tax   Act,   2003.     According   to   him   on   account   of<\/p>\n
continuous loss he had stopped production during June 2005 upon due<\/p>\n
intimation.     On   account   of   the   stoppage   of   production   statutory<\/p>\n
monthly   returns   were   not   filed.     It   is   the   contention   of   the   petitioner<\/p>\n
that though there was due intimation regarding the closure of business,<\/p>\n
notice on the proposal to levy penalty was issued in the same address<\/p>\n
and   thereafter   penalty   orders   were   passed   for   failure   to   file   monthly<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.18330\/2006<\/p>\n
                                          -:2:-<\/span><\/p>\n
returns for the months of April 2005 to February 2006.  The orders are<\/p>\n
marked   as   Exts.P1   to   P11.     According   to   the   petitioner   the   penalty<\/p>\n
orders were issued in violation of the procedure under Section 67 of the<\/p>\n
Act,   for  want  of  notice.     Aggrieved  by Exts.P1  to   P11   petitioner  has<\/p>\n
filed   revision   petitions   and   also   stay   petitions   which   are   marked   as<\/p>\n
Exts.P14   to   P35   and   the   same   are   pending   before   the   second<\/p>\n
respondent.     In   the   meanwhile   as   per   Ext.P36   recovery   steps   were<\/p>\n
initiated and hence the writ petition.   When the writ petition came up<\/p>\n
for admission the learned Single Judge felt that since there is challenge<\/p>\n
on 11 penalty orders, the cause of action being multifarious, the court<\/p>\n
fee  should   be  paid   in  respect   of  each  cause   of   action   as  held   by  this<\/p>\n
court   in   Writ   Appeal   No.619\/1989   and   thereafter   in   an   unregistered<\/p>\n
writ petition by another Division Bench in the order dated 6-11-1989<\/p>\n
wherein   the   view   taken   was   that   when   different   proceedings   are<\/p>\n
challenged in one writ petition, the petitioner is bound to pay separate<\/p>\n
court   fee   in   respect   of   each   of   the   proceedings.     In   both   cases<\/p>\n
proceedings   under   the   Kerala   General   Sales-tax   Act   were   under<\/p>\n
challenge.   The only difference is that in the instant case it is monthly<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.18330\/2006<\/p>\n
                                            -:3:-<\/span><\/p>\n
returns whereas in the cases referred to above it is separate assessment<\/p>\n
order of each year.   According to the learned single Judge despite the<\/p>\n
2003   amendment   in   the   Kerala   Court   Fees   and   Suits   Valuation   Act<\/p>\n
prescribing Rs.100\/- per petitioner for the writ petition, when different<\/p>\n
and distinct proceedings are challenged, the petitioner should pay court<\/p>\n
fee in respect of each of the proceedings.   The Division Bench in the<\/p>\n
order under reference noted that there is another Bench decision of this<\/p>\n
court in Somanathan v. State of Kerala,<\/a>  2003 (3) KLT 1148 wherein it<\/p>\n
was   held   that   on   interlocutory   applications   when   more   than   one<\/p>\n
petitioner joins in a writ petition, only one set of consolidated court fee<\/p>\n
need be paid and there need not be court fee per petitioner.  Inter alia it<\/p>\n
was also noted that as the 2003 Amending Act used the expression ‘per<\/p>\n
petitioner’   as   far   as   an   original   petition   filed   in   the   High   Court   is<\/p>\n
concerned,   even   when   multifarious   reliefs   are   clubbed   in   the   writ<\/p>\n
petition  the court fee is to be reckoned not  in respect of the cause of<\/p>\n
action but counted in terms of the number of petitioners.   The Division<\/p>\n
Bench which referred the matter for consideration by the Full Bench is<\/p>\n
of   the   opinion   that   “a   view   possible   is   that   petitioner   ought   to   have<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.18330\/2006<\/p>\n
                                              -:4:-<\/span><\/p>\n
challenged each penalty order by filing separate writ petition but since<\/p>\n
common question of law is available, he can be allowed to file one writ<\/p>\n
petition   but   separate   set   of   court   fees   should   be   paid   as   if   separate<\/p>\n
petitions are filed challenging each penalty order.  Since this is a matter<\/p>\n
of  importance,  we   are   of   the   opinion   that,   it   should   be   decided   by   a<\/p>\n
larger  bench  of  this  Court,  and hence, we adjourn  the case and place<\/p>\n
before the Honourable the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.”<\/p>\n
       2.   A litigant is required to pay court fee in view   of the special<\/p>\n
services   rendered   to   him   by   the   State   Government   in   the   matter   of<\/p>\n
adjudication of his grievances.  Under Entry 3 of list 2 of Schedule VII<\/p>\n
of the Constitution of India it is for the State Legislature to prescribe<\/p>\n
the   court   fee   in   the   High   Court   and   other   courts.     There   has   to   be   a<\/p>\n
broad   co-relationship   with   the   fees   collected   and   the   cost   of<\/p>\n
administration   of   justice.     The   value   of   the   subject   matter   of   the<\/p>\n
dispute,  the procedure involved  in the adjudication, the establishment<\/p>\n
expenses etc. are some of the relevant matters in fixing the court fee.<\/p>\n
       3.  The Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (Act 10<\/p>\n
of   1960)   was   enacted   to   amend   and   consolidate   the   law   relating   to<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.18330\/2006<\/p>\n
                                              -:5:-<\/span><\/p>\n
Court   Fees   and   Valuation   of   Suits   in   the   State   of   Kerala.     As   per<\/p>\n
Section   21   “the   fee   payable   under   this   Act   shall   be   determined   or<\/p>\n
computed in accordance with the provisions  of this Chapter, (Chapter<\/p>\n
IV) Chapter VI, Chapter IX and Schedules I and II.”  Article 11 alone<\/p>\n
deals with the court fee in respect of the original petition in the High<\/p>\n
Court.   Under Article 11 (l), original petitions not otherwise provided<\/p>\n
for when filed in the High Court, the court fee payable is Rs.100\/- per<\/p>\n
petitioner.   Prior to 5-12-1990 it was only Rs.25\/- and in between till<\/p>\n
2003   there   was   no   fees.     There   was   no   stipulation   regarding   the   fee<\/p>\n
payable  by each petitioner.    Article  11  (r)  of Schedule  II of  the   Act<\/p>\n
prior to its omission with effect from 5-12-1990 read as follows:-<\/p>\n
        “Petition to the High Court under Art.226 of<\/p>\n
        the Constitution for a writ other than the writ of<\/p>\n
        Habeas Corpus or a petition under Art.227 of<\/p>\n
        the Constitution.                                              Twentyfive rupees”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Though the State intended to re-introduce the provision of court fee for<\/p>\n
writ   petitions,   the   same   was   done   only   by   amendment   to   the   rate   as<\/p>\n
provided under Article 11(l).  The provision reads as follows:-<\/p>\n
      “11(l) Original Petitions not otherwise provided<\/p>\n
                for when filed in the High Court                            One hundred rupees<\/p>\n
                                                                         per  petitioner.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
W.P(C)No.18330\/2006<\/p>\n
                                               -:6:-<\/span><\/p>\n
Article 11(t) reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       “11(t)  Application or petition presented to<\/p>\n
                  the High Court and not otherwise<\/p>\n
                  specifically provided for                …           Ten rupees”.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Prior to 2003 it was Rs.2\/-.   In  the Bench decision in Somanathan v.<\/p>\n
State of Kerala<\/a> (supra) it is held that the application or petition referred<\/p>\n
to   in   Article   11(t)   is   the   interlocutory   application   and   the   court   fee<\/p>\n
regarding original petition (writ petition) is to be governed by Article<\/p>\n
11(l)(iii).   In  Radhamma v. Srivasthava,<\/a> (2003 (3) KLT 916) it is also<\/p>\n
held   that   for   contempt   of   court   cases   irrespective   of   the   number   of<\/p>\n
petitioners the court fee payable is only Rs.100\/-.<\/p>\n
       4.  Under Schedule II of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act,<\/p>\n
in   contra   distinction   to   all   other   Articles,   Article   11(l)(iii)   alone<\/p>\n
stipulates  the fee as payable per petitioner.    As per Section 21 of the<\/p>\n
Act   the   court   fee   payable   is   in   accordance   with   the   provisions   of<\/p>\n
Chapter IV, Chapter VI, Chapter IX and Schedules only.   Chapter IV<\/p>\n
deals   with   suits,   Chapter   VI   deals   with   Probate,     Letters   of<\/p>\n
administration and Certificates of administration, Chapter IX provides<\/p>\n
for   certain   miscellaneous   provisions   regarding   stamp,   penalty,   rule<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.18330\/2006<\/p>\n
                                           -:7:-<\/span><\/p>\n
making  power  of  the  High  Court,  Government  etc.     Schedule  I deals<\/p>\n
with ad valorem fees.   Schedule II alone provides for the fees payable<\/p>\n
in a writ petition.   It would be profitable to note that Article 11(l) is a<\/p>\n
residuary   provision   providing   for   original   petitions   not   otherwise<\/p>\n
provided for in  Schedule II.   As noted above Article 11(r) omitted by<\/p>\n
Act 6 of 1999 was not re-introduced by the Amendment Act of 2003.<\/p>\n
Article   11(r)   as   it   originally   stood   specifically   provided   for   writ<\/p>\n
petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and the<\/p>\n
fee   payable   was   Rs.25\/-.     It   was   in   that   context   the   earlier   Division<\/p>\n
Bench of this court held that in respect of separate cause of action when<\/p>\n
distinct and different reliefs are sought in a writ petition, the court fee<\/p>\n
payable is at the rate of Rs.25\/- per cause of action.   The Legislature<\/p>\n
obviously   did   not   intend   to   retain   the   concept.     A   new   concept   was<\/p>\n
introduced by the Amendment Act of 2003 prescribing that in respect<\/p>\n
of   writ   petitions   in   the   High   Court,   the   court   fee   payable   is   only<\/p>\n
Rs.100\/- per petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       5.     The   Kerala   High   Court   Act   1958   was   enacted   to   make<\/p>\n
provision   regulating   the   business   and   exercise   of   the   powers   of   the<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.18330\/2006<\/p>\n
                                           -:8:-<\/span><\/p>\n
High Court of the State of Kerala.   Rules of the High Court of Kerala<\/p>\n
1971   were   framed   in   exercise   of   the   powers   conferred   under   Article<\/p>\n
225   of   the   Constitution   of   India,   Section   122   of   the   Code   of   Civil<\/p>\n
Procedure, by the High Court.  Rule 146 deals with the contents of an<\/p>\n
original petition which reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                        “146.     Contents   of   the   applications.   —   Every<\/p>\n
                 application shall set out the provision of law under which<\/p>\n
                 it is made, the name and description of the petitioner and<\/p>\n
                 the respondent, a clear and concise statement of facts, the<\/p>\n
                 grounds on which the relief  is sought and shall be signed<\/p>\n
                 by   petitioner   and   by   his   Advocate,   if   he   has   appointed<\/p>\n
                 one, as in Form No.10.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                        Provided that no petition shall be entertained by the<\/p>\n
                 Registry unless it contains a statement as to whether the<\/p>\n
                 petitioner had filed any petition seeking similar reliefs in<\/p>\n
                 respect   of   the   same  subject   matter   earlier   and   if   so,   the<\/p>\n
                 result thereof.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
Rule  147   A  permits   more  than  one  petitioner   to  join   in   a single   writ<\/p>\n
petition   on   condition   that   each   petitioner   should   pay   court   fee   as<\/p>\n
prescribed   under   Schedule   II   of   the   Kerala   Court   Fees   and   Suits<\/p>\n
Valuation Act,1959.  The Rule reads as follows:-<\/p>\n
                              “147A.     More   persons   than   one   may   join   in<\/p>\n
                       one Writ Petition as petitioners in whom any right to<\/p>\n
                       relief in respect of or arising out of the same act or<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.18330\/2006<\/p>\n
                                          -:9:-<\/span><\/p>\n
                       transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged<\/p>\n
                       to   exist,   whether   jointly,   severally   or   in   the<\/p>\n
                       alternative,   where,   if   such   persons   present   separate<\/p>\n
                       Writ Petitions, any common question of law or fact<\/p>\n
                       would   arise   provided   that   each   person   joining   in<\/p>\n
                       such   Writ   Petition   shall   pay   the   court   fee   payable<\/p>\n
                       under   Article   11   (4)   of   Schedule   II   of   the   Kerala<\/p>\n
                       Court   Fees   and   Suits   Valuation   Act,   as   if   each   of<\/p>\n
                       them had filed a separate Writ Petition.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              6.   The learned Special Government Pleader contends that<\/p>\n
in view of Section 6 of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act when an<\/p>\n
original  petition   embraces  two  or  more  distinct or  different  causes  of<\/p>\n
action and separate reliefs are sought based on them, court fee should<\/p>\n
be   paid   in   respect   of   each   cause   of   action.     The   section   reads   as<\/p>\n
follows:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                             “6.  Multifarious suits. – (1) In any suit in which<\/p>\n
                     separate   and   distinct   reliefs   are   sought   based   on   the<\/p>\n
                     same   cause   of   action,   the   plaint   shall   be   chargeable<\/p>\n
                     with a fee on the aggregate value of the reliefs:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                             Provided   that,   if   a   relief   is   sought   only   as<\/p>\n
                     ancillary   too   the   main     relief,   the   plaint   shall   be<\/p>\n
                     chargeable only on the value of the main reliefs.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                             (2)   Where more reliefs than one based on  the<\/p>\n
                     same cause of action  are sought  in the alternative in<\/p>\n
                     any   suit,   the   plaint   shall   be   chargeable   with   the<\/p>\n
                     highest   of  the  fees   leviable  in   respect   of  any  one   of<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.18330\/2006<\/p>\n
                                     -:10:-<\/span><\/p>\n
                 the reliefs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                        (3)  Where a suit embraces two or more distinct<\/p>\n
                 and different causes of action and separate reliefs are<\/p>\n
                 sought   based   on   them,   either   alternatively   or<\/p>\n
                 cumulatively, the  plaint   shall  be  chargeable   with  the<\/p>\n
                 aggregate   amount   of   the   fees   with   which   plaints<\/p>\n
                 would  be   chargeable  under   this   Act  if  separate  suits<\/p>\n
                 were   instituted   in   respect   of   the   several   causes   of<\/p>\n
                 action:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                        Provided   that,   where   the   causes   of   action   in<\/p>\n
                 respect   of   reliefs   claimed   alternatively   against   the<\/p>\n
                 same   person   arise   out   of   the   same   transaction,   the<\/p>\n
                 plaint shall be chargeable only with the highest of the<\/p>\n
                 fees chargeable on them.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                        Nothing   in   the   sub-section   shall   be   deemed   to<\/p>\n
                 affect any power conferred upon a Court under Rule 6<\/p>\n
                 of   Order   II   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure,   1908<\/p>\n
                 (Central Act V of 1908).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                        (4)     The   provisions   of   this   section   shall   apply<\/p>\n
                 mutatis   mutandis   to   memoranda   of   appeals,<\/p>\n
                 applications, petitions and written statements.<\/p>\n
                        Explanation. — For the purpose of this section, a<\/p>\n
                 suit   for   possession   of   immovable   property   and   for<\/p>\n
                 mesne   profits   shall   be   deemed   to   be   based   on   the<\/p>\n
                 same cause of action.”\n<\/p>\n
\nAt the outset it has to be noted that the provision deals with only suits<\/p>\n
and not original petitions in the High Court.   The expression ‘petition’<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.18330\/2006<\/p>\n
                                            -:11:-<\/span><\/p>\n
under Section 6(4) is intended to provide for petitions filed in the suit<\/p>\n
and not an original petition.   The learned Government Pleader invited<\/p>\n
our   attention   to   the   interpretation   given   to   the   section   under   the<\/p>\n
provisions   of   the   Madras   Court   Fees   and   Suits   Valuation   Act,   1955.<\/p>\n
Section 6 herein is identically worded.   A learned single Judge of the<\/p>\n
Madras   High   Court   in  R.Sethupathi   v.   The   State,  AIR   1957   Madras<\/p>\n
570,   observed   that   the   petitioner   referred   to   in   Section   6(4)   would<\/p>\n
include  writ   petitions  also.    We  are  afraid  the  interpretation  does   not<\/p>\n
reflect the correct position in law.  It has to be noted that the court fee<\/p>\n
payable in a suit is ad valorem.  Hence only it is stipulated in Section 6<\/p>\n
(3) that where a suit embraces two or more different and distinct causes<\/p>\n
of   action   and   separate   reliefs   are   sought   based   on   them,   the   plaint<\/p>\n
should   be   valued     on   the   aggregate   amount   of   plaint   claim   for   the<\/p>\n
purpose   of   court   fees.     It   is   also   to   be   noted   that   under   the   Madras<\/p>\n
Court   Fees   and   Suits   Valuation   Act,   1955,   the   court   fee   prescribed<\/p>\n
under Appendix II, Article 11(l) (iii) in respect of original petitions not<\/p>\n
otherwise provided for is only Rs.20\/- at the relevant time.  There is no<\/p>\n
stipulation   in   the   Schedule   regarding   the   fees   to   be   paid   by   each<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.18330\/2006<\/p>\n
                                            -:12:-<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner when more than one person join in a writ petition.  Under the<\/p>\n
Kerala Act the scheme is different.   In the matter of payment of court<\/p>\n
fee   in   a     writ   petition   the   same   is   to   be   computed   in   terms   of   the<\/p>\n
number of petitioners in a writ petition.   There is no stipulation in the<\/p>\n
Schedule or in the High Court Rules with regard to payment of court<\/p>\n
fee in respect of each cause of action.   That does not mean that a writ<\/p>\n
petitioner can consolidate all his grievances in a bundle of facts and file<\/p>\n
one writ petition.   It would only mean that in a writ petition based on<\/p>\n
the   same   set   of   facts   and   on   the   very   same   question   of   law   a   writ<\/p>\n
petitioner   need   pay   only   one   set   of   court   fee,   namely   Rs.100\/-.     The<\/p>\n
facts   in   the   instant   case   are   almost   identical   to   that   of   the   case<\/p>\n
considered by the Supreme Court in  Chandra Bhan Gosain v. State of<\/p>\n
Orissa,   AIR<\/a> 1967 SC 767, wherein it has been held that in a petition<\/p>\n
under Article 226 challenging the validity of various assessment orders<\/p>\n
there was only one proceeding and hence in the appeal to the Supreme<\/p>\n
Court there need only be one set of court fee.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       7.     In   this   context   it   would   also   be   profitable   to   refer   to   the<\/p>\n
contents of Form No.10 prescribed under Rule 146 of the Rules of the<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.18330\/2006<\/p>\n
                                          -:13:-<\/span><\/p>\n
High  Court  of  Kerala  in  the matter  of original  petitions.    The  format<\/p>\n
reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                             “Form No.10 (Rule 146)<\/p>\n
                    In the High Court of Judicature, Kerala<\/p>\n
                         (Special Original Jurisdiction)<\/p>\n
                      Original Petition No…………of 19…..<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                     BETWEEN<\/p>\n
                                AB………..Petitioner<\/p>\n
                                          And<\/p>\n
                              C.D. ……..Respondent<\/p>\n
       Petition   under   Article   226   of   the   Constitution   of   India.     The<\/p>\n
petitioner above named states as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       1.  The petitioner is (give description and address).  The address<\/p>\n
of the petitioner for service of all notices is…….<\/p>\n
       2.  The respondent is (give description and address)<\/p>\n
       3.*[Here set out the facts].\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       4.  (Here set out the grounds for relief)<\/p>\n
       5.     For   the   reasons   set   out   above   and   in   the   affidavit   filed<\/p>\n
herewith   the   petitioner   prays   that   (set   out   the   reliefs   sought)   **<\/p>\n
[including the interim reliefs].\n<\/p>\n
                                            (Sd) Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
Date......                                  (Sd) Advocate for petitioner.\"\n\n\nW.P(C)No.18330\/2006\n\n                                             -:14:-<\/span>\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
The Form also indicates that even if there are several reliefs, there need<\/p>\n
only be one writ petition in case the reliefs arise out of the same set of<\/p>\n
facts and rest on same set of grounds.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               8.     One   of   the   reliefs   prayed   for   in   the   writ   petition   is   a<\/p>\n
direction   to   the   second   respondent   to   dispose   of   Ext.P14   to   P24<\/p>\n
revision petitions filed against Exts.P1 to P11 orders of penalty.   The<\/p>\n
main ground in the writ petition is that the impugned orders have been<\/p>\n
passed   without   notice   to   the   petitioner,   in   violation   of   the   procedure<\/p>\n
prescribed under Section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act 2003.<\/p>\n
According to the petitioner, as soon as he received notice he has taken<\/p>\n
steps   under   Section   22   of   the   Act   and   hence   he   is   not   liable   to   be<\/p>\n
visited with any penalty.  Since appreciation of facts is also involved in<\/p>\n
the case it is only appropriate that the statutory authority considers the<\/p>\n
revision   petitions.     Accordingly   we   direct   the   second   respondent   to<\/p>\n
consider   and   dispose   of   Exts.P14   to   P24   revision   petitions<\/p>\n
expeditiously, with notice and opportunity for hearing to the petitioner.<\/p>\n
Pending disposal of the revision petitions, the second respondent shall<\/p>\n
consider and pass orders on Exts.P25 to P35 stay petitions within one<\/p>\n
W.P(C)No.18330\/2006<\/p>\n
                                       -:15:-<\/span><\/p>\n
month   from   today.   Till   such   time,   the   recovery   steps   pursuant   to<\/p>\n
Ext.P36 demand notice will be kept in abeyance.<\/p>\n
        The writ petition is disposed of as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                         (V.K.BALI, CHIEF JUSTICE)<\/p>\n
                                           (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
                                   (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR JUDGE)<\/p>\n
ahg.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M.Leonard Ashok vs Commercial Tax Officer-I on 20 December, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 18330 of 2006(F) 1. M.LEONARD ASHOK, … Petitioner Vs 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-I, CHITTUR. … Respondent 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, 3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), CHITTUR, For Petitioner :SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR For Respondent […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-166428","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.Leonard Ashok vs Commercial Tax Officer-I on 20 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-leonard-ashok-vs-commercial-tax-officer-i-on-20-december-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.Leonard Ashok vs Commercial Tax Officer-I on 20 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-leonard-ashok-vs-commercial-tax-officer-i-on-20-december-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-12-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-29T15:36:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-leonard-ashok-vs-commercial-tax-officer-i-on-20-december-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-leonard-ashok-vs-commercial-tax-officer-i-on-20-december-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.Leonard Ashok vs Commercial Tax Officer-I on 20 December, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-12-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-29T15:36:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-leonard-ashok-vs-commercial-tax-officer-i-on-20-december-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2979,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-leonard-ashok-vs-commercial-tax-officer-i-on-20-december-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-leonard-ashok-vs-commercial-tax-officer-i-on-20-december-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-leonard-ashok-vs-commercial-tax-officer-i-on-20-december-2006\",\"name\":\"M.Leonard Ashok vs Commercial Tax Officer-I on 20 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-12-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-29T15:36:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-leonard-ashok-vs-commercial-tax-officer-i-on-20-december-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-leonard-ashok-vs-commercial-tax-officer-i-on-20-december-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-leonard-ashok-vs-commercial-tax-officer-i-on-20-december-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.Leonard Ashok vs Commercial Tax Officer-I on 20 December, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M.Leonard Ashok vs Commercial Tax Officer-I on 20 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-leonard-ashok-vs-commercial-tax-officer-i-on-20-december-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.Leonard Ashok vs Commercial Tax Officer-I on 20 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-leonard-ashok-vs-commercial-tax-officer-i-on-20-december-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-12-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-29T15:36:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-leonard-ashok-vs-commercial-tax-officer-i-on-20-december-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-leonard-ashok-vs-commercial-tax-officer-i-on-20-december-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.Leonard Ashok vs Commercial Tax Officer-I on 20 December, 2006","datePublished":"2006-12-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-29T15:36:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-leonard-ashok-vs-commercial-tax-officer-i-on-20-december-2006"},"wordCount":2979,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-leonard-ashok-vs-commercial-tax-officer-i-on-20-december-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-leonard-ashok-vs-commercial-tax-officer-i-on-20-december-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-leonard-ashok-vs-commercial-tax-officer-i-on-20-december-2006","name":"M.Leonard Ashok vs Commercial Tax Officer-I on 20 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-12-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-29T15:36:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-leonard-ashok-vs-commercial-tax-officer-i-on-20-december-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-leonard-ashok-vs-commercial-tax-officer-i-on-20-december-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-leonard-ashok-vs-commercial-tax-officer-i-on-20-december-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.Leonard Ashok vs Commercial Tax Officer-I on 20 December, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166428","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=166428"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166428\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=166428"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=166428"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=166428"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}