Kerala High Court
M/S. Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) on 10 June, 2016
Author: A.M. Shaffique
Bench: A.M.Shaffique
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/14TH ASWINA, 1938
WP(C).No. 32344 of 2016 (P)
----------------------------
PETITIONER :
---------------------
M/S. PARLE AGRO PVT. LTD.,
5/188 MEPPARAMBA PIRAYIRI.P.O., PALAKKAD,
MUMBAI-400 099, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER ACCOUNTS
SIVAKUMAR CHAKKITIYIL THAZHATHETHIL.
BY ADVS.SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN
SRI.N.S.SHAJI
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------------------
1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT),
SPECIAL CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES,
PALAKKAD-678 001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),
COMMERCIAL TAXES KOTTAYAM AT ERNAKULAM-682 015
3. THE VALUE ADDED APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
PALAKKAD-678 001
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).NO.32344/2016
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32090580088/APRIL 2016 ISSUED BY
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), PALAKKAD DATED
10/06/2016
P2 COPY OF THE ORDER IN KVATA 1976/2016 DATED 15/07/2016 ISSUED BY THE
SECOND RESPONDENT
P3 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT FOR APRIL 2016 DATED 26/07/2016
P4 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD
RESPONDENT FOR APRIL 2016 DATED 26/07/2016
P5 COPY OF THE ORDER INTP.NO.127/2016 IN TA (VAT) NO.149/2016 DATED
07/09/2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
sts
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
===============
W.P. (C) No. 32344 of 2016
==================
Dated this, the 6th day of October, 2016
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P5. Ext.P5 is an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in an application for stay by which the petitioner is called upon to remit 50% of the balance due. A perusal of Ext.P5 would show that the Tribunal had considered the matter in the proper perspective and there is no allegation of violation of principles of natural justice. I also do not find any jurisdictional error by which the direction had been issued. Under such circumstances, there is no merit in the contention urged by the petitioner that the order requires modification.
2. However, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks some more time to remit the amount as stated in Ext.P5 order. Taking into consideration the above request, petitioner is granted further three months' time from today to comply with Ext.P5.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE
Rp6/10/2016 //True Copy//
P.S to Judge