Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

C.Varghese vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 9 February, 2010

Author: K.Surendra Mohan

Bench: K.Surendra Mohan

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 4156 of 2010(T)


1. C.VARGHESE, PERIYAR LODGE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,(WC & LT),
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),

3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :09/02/2010

 O R D E R
                         K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
                ------------------------------------------------------------
                      W.P(C) NO: 4156 OF 2010 T
                -----------------------------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 9th February, 2010.

                                    JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the Proprietor of Periyar Lodge at Angamaly. According to him he is a small dealer who is not liable to take registration under the Luxuries Tax Act. The first respondent has completed assessment of the petitioner for the years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-2009. The allegation of the petitioner is that the assessments were completed without issuing any notice to or hearing the petitioner. The petitioner has therefore, challenged the orders of assessment passed against him by filing appeals before the second respondent. The appeals filed by the petitioner are Exts.P6 to P10. Along with the appeals the petitioner has also filed Exts.P11 to P15 stay petitions seeking to stay the recovery of the amounts assessed and demanded from him. His complaint is that no orders have been passed on the appeal or the stay petitions till date. At the same time, as per Ext.P16, Revenue Recovery proceedings have been initiated against him for the recovery of the tax assessed. The petitioner prays for appropriate orders staying the recovery proceedings during the pendency of the proceedings before the second respondent. This WPC 4156/2010 2 writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the second respondent to consider Exts.P11 to P15 stay petitions in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Until final orders are passed on Exts.P11 to P15 stay petitions, all further proceedings based on or pursuant to Ext.P16 shall remain stayed.





                                          K. SURENDRA MOHAN
                                                  Judge
jj

WPC 4156/2010    3

                      K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ.

----------------------------------------------------

M.F.A.NO:

-----------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT Dated: