Kerala High Court
Peirce Leslie Agencies Limited (Now Pl ... vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on 16 March, 2012
Author: A.M. Shaffique
Bench: A.M.Shaffique
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/16TH ASWINA, 1936
WP(C).No. 26029 of 2014 (C)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
------------------
PEIRCE LESLIE AGENCIES LIMITED (NOW PL SHIPPING & LOGISTICS
LIMITED), BRISTOW ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN - 682 003
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER (C&F) MR.SABU MATHEW.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.J.MATHEW (SR.)
SRI.BIJISH B.TOM
SRI.VIPIN P.VARGHESE
SMT.NESSIE SURESH
SMT.RENU KURIACHAN
RESPONDENTS:
-----------------------
1. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, II CIRCLE
MATTANCHERRY, COCHIN - 682 002.
2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, II CIRCLE
MATTANCHERRY, COCHIN - 682 002.
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),
COMMERCIAL TAXES COMPLEX, PERUMANOOR, THEVARA
ERNAKULAM - 682 015.
4. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY (TAXES DEPARTMENT)
ABOVE OLD ASSEMBLY HALL, SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.V. LONACHAN.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
iap
WP(C).No. 26029 of 2014 (C)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
-------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E-275/2010-11/WLR DATED
16.03.2012 PASSED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
(ENQUIRY), PALAKKAD.
EXHIBIT P2. THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E-276/2010-11/WLR DATED
16.03.2012 PASSED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (ENQUIRY),
PALAKKAD.
EXHIBIT P3. THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.12.2013 RELATING TO
ORDER NO.E-275/2010-11/WLR DATED 16.03.2012 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4. THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.12.2013 RELATING TO
ORDER NO.E-276/2010-11/WLR DATED 16.03.2012 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5. THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.04.2014 ISSUED BY
THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT RELATING TO ORDER
NO.E-275/2010-11/WLR DATED 16.03.2012.
EXHIBIT P6. THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.04.2014 ISSUED BY
THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT RELATING TO ORDER
NO.E-276/2010-11/WLR DATED 16.03.2012.
EXHIBIT P7. THE TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER
NO.32161518955/2010-11 DATED 30.04.2014 PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8. THE TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER
NO.32151618955/2010-11 SS 30.04.2014 PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9. THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND NO.1 DATED
14.05.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10. THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND NO.2 DATED
14.05.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
WP(C).No. 26029 of 2014 (C)
----------------------------
EXHIBIT P11. THE TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE NO.RR
135/14-15 DATED 20.08.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P12. THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.09.2014 ISSUED BY
THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL
-----------------------------------------
//TRUE COPY\\
P.A. TO JUDGE
iap
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
=========================
W.P.(C). No. 26029 of 2014
=================================
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2014
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Exts.P7 to P11 inter-alia contending that as against an order of penalty the petitioner had preferred separate appeals before the 3rd respondent and so far the appellate authority has not passed any order in that matter. According to the petitioner, during the pendency of the said appeal, the assessing officer ought not to have passed any order on Exts.P7 and P8.
2. The appeals pending before the appellate authority as referred to in the writ petition is with reference to an assessment order in relation to the penalty imposed on the petitioner as Exts.P1 and P2. The assessment orders Exts.P7 and P8 are in respect of the assessment year 2010-2011, wherein the authority had determined the taxable turn over. This is an appealable -2- W.P.(C). No. 26029 of 2014 order under Section 55 of the KVAT Act. It is pursuant to Exts.P7 and P8, demand notices have been issued as Exts.P9 and P10 and Ext.P11 is the revenue recovery notice.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader.
4. Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, the remedy open to the petitioner is only to file appeal against Exts.P7 and P8 orders. If there is delay in filing the appeals, the petitioner has to file application for condonation of delay. It is for the appellate authority to consider the merits of the appeal and decide whether stay has to be granted in the matter.
5. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is now faced with Ext. P11 revenue recovery notice, I am of the view that the same can be kept in abeyance by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy by filing an appeal against Exts.P7 and P8.
-3- W.P.(C). No. 26029 of 2014
6. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of as under:
Petitioner shall file necessary appeals against Exts.P7 and P8 orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment along with necessary application for stay. The stay petition, if so, filed shall be considered and disposed of within a further period of one month along with the petition to condone delay if any. Until such time Ext.P11 shall be kept in abeyance.
Sd/-
A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE das