Kerala High Court
Ajith V Nair vs The State Of Kerala on 30 June, 2016
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic, Dama Seshadri Naidu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2016/9TH BHADRA, 1938
WA.No. 1702 of 2016 () IN WP(C).5450/2015
-------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 5450/2015 of HIGH COURT OF
KERALA DATED 30-06-2016
APPELLANT(S)/WRIT PETITIONER:
AJITH V NAIR
M/S. AISWARYA JEWELLERS, THENGANA,
CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM - 683 542.
BY ADVS.DR.K.P.PRADEEP
SRI.T.T.BIJU
SMT.T.THASMI
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
1. THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY (TAXES) TO THE GOVERNMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,
SQUAD NO. III, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
KOTTAYAM- 686 001.
3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
CIRCLE-I, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM- 686 101
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.
5. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXCES,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, 8TH FLOOR, TAX TOWERS, KARAMANA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 002.
6. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR)
TALUK OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY,
KOTTAYAM - 686 102
R BY SRI. MOHAMMED RAFIQ, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.
-------------------------------------------
W.A. No. 1702 of 2016
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of August, 2016.
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic,J.
The appellant filed W.P.(C) No. 5450 of 2015 impugning clause (d) of the proviso to Section 18B of the KVAT Act and claiming the benefit of Circular No. 4/2013. The appellant also sought to quash Exts.P5, P8, P9 and P10. The writ petition having been dismissed, this appeal is filed.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. Insofar as the proviso to Section 18B of the Act is concerned, though this provision was challenged in the writ petition, even in the pleadings of the writ petition, the appellant has not made out any of the grounds that are available for impugning a statutory enactment. Therefore, we agree with the learned single Judge that there is absolutely no substance in the challenge raised.
4. Insofar as the benefit of Ext.P3 Circular No. 4/2013, which was claimed by the appellant, is concerned, it was rejecting that W.A. No. 1702/2016 -2- claim, penalty under Section 67 of the KVAT Act was levied on the appellant as per Ext.P5 order, which was confirmed by the first revisional authority in Ext.P8. Against Ext.P8, the appellant has a revisional remedy available before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes before whom, it is open to the appellant to canvass his contention that he is eligible for the benefit of Circular No. 4/2013. Therefore, we leave it open to the appellant to pursue the revisional remedy that is available before the Commissioner.
5. Insofar as Ext.P9 is concerned, that was the order of assessment passed rejecting Ext.P9 application for registration. The statute provides appellate remedies against Ext.P10 assessment order.
6. In such circumstances, both against Exts.P8 and P10, the alternative remedies are available to the appellant and it is up to the appellant to pursue the same. However, taking note of the pendency of the writ petition, which was filed in 2015, and this appeal, we direct that if the appellant files a revision and appeal before the concerned revisional authority and the appellate authority respectively within four weeks from today, the concerned authority shall consider the W.A. No. 1702/2016 -3- same on merits and in accordance with law. It is also directed that the revisional authority and the appellate authority shall consider the contentions and pass orders untramelled by any observations made by the learned single Judge in the judgment under appeal.
With the above observations, this writ appeal is disposed of.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
DAMAJUDGE.
SESHADRI NAIDU, Rv W.A. No. 1702/2016 -4-