Kerala High Court
M/S. Delta M-Sand (P) Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 22 January, 2016
Author: K. Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/25TH MAGHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 4820 of 2017 (B)
---------------------------
PETITIONER :
----------------------
M/S. DELTA M-SAND (P) LTD.,
KP 1/12896, VATTAKKULAM MALA ROAD,
ANAVOOR, NEYYATTINKARA -695 024,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
THOMAS PHILIP.
BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON
SMT.MEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------------------
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
NEYYATTINKARA - 695 121
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002
R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 4820 of 2017 (B)
---------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
----------------------------------------
P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR
2012-13, DATED 22/01/2016
P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT, DATED 28/03/2016
P3 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 19/01/2017.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
-------------------------------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
=====================
W.P.(C)No.4820 of 2017 - B
=========================
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2017
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P3 conditional order. The assessment year is 2012-13. The petitioner's contention is that the M-sand production, which was reckoned as a suppression by the Intelligence Officer and the addition made of one time was exempted in the relevant year. M-sand produced by the crusher units were exempted from tax payment, if the crusher units were compounded. There was however no compounding provision applicable to the machinery for making M-sand. However in the year 2014-15, there was an amendment made, by which the machinery used for making M-sand was also made compoundable.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner hence submits that at best M-sand could have been taxed prospectively from 2014-15 and not in the earlier years. The 2 W.P.(C)No.4820/2017 issue has been answered against the Department by a learned Single Judge and an appeal is said to be pending before the Division Bench. Considering the fact that the additional tax demanded by the Intelligence Officer is entirely with respect to the suppression detected of M-sand and also the contentions taken by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, this Court is of the opinion that there could be a blanket stay, insofar as the recovery, while the Appellate Authority considers the appeal. Ext.P3 would stand set aside. The Appellate Authority is directed to consider the appeal and in the meanwhile there shall be a stay of recovery.
The writ petition would stand allowed.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB/14/02/2017 // true copy // P.A to Judge