Kerala High Court
M/S. Kmp Timber & Saw Mills vs The Fast Track Assessment Team
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
MONDAY,THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2015/2ND CHAITHRA, 1937
WP(C).No. 9139 of 2015 (N)
--------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
----------------------
M/S. KMP TIMBER & SAW MILLS,
P.M.ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686661,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER K.P.SAIRAJ.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI
SMT.K.P.RANI
RESPONDENT(S):
------------------------
1. THE FAST TRACK ASSESSMENT TEAM,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
HEADED BTY INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
MUVATTUPUZHA-686661.
2. THE SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
THEVARA, ERNAKULAM-682015.
3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
MUVATTUPUZHA-686661.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SOBHA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
PJ
WP(C).No. 9139 of 2015 (N)
--------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
-----------------------------------
P1: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEARING NUMBER 23152267/02-03
DATED 18/3/10 FOR THE YEAR 2002-03 UNDER KGST ACT ISSUED BY THE R1
TO THE PETITIONER
P1A: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEARING NUMBER 23152267/03-04
DATED 19/3/10 FOR THE YEAR 2003-04 UNDER KGST ACT ISSUED BY THE R1
TO THE PETITIONER
P1B: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEARING NUMBER 23152267/04-05
DATED 19/3/10 FOR THE YEAR 2004-05 UNDER KGST ACT ISSUED BY THE R1
TO THE PETITIONER
P2: COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 8/7/10 FOR THE YEAR 2002-03 BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2
P2A: COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 8/7/10 FOR THE YEAR 2003-04 BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2
P2B: COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 8/7/10 FOR THE YEAR 2004-05 BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2
P3: COPY OF THE DISMISSAL ORDER NO.TA.164/10 DATED 12/10/12 ISSUED BY
THE R2 TO THE PETITIONER
P3A: COPY OF THE DISMISSAL ORDER NO.TA.165/10 DATED 12/10/12 ISSUED BY
THE R2 TO THE PETITIONER
P3B: COPY OF THE DISMISSAL ORDER NO.TA.166/10 DATED 12/10/12 ISSUED BY
THE R2 TO THE PETITIONER
P4: COPY OF THE RESTORATION PETITION DATED 8/3/13 AGAINST THE ORDER
OF THE R2 IN TA.NO.164/10 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2
P4A: COPY OF THE RESTORATION PETITION DATED 8/3/13 AGAINST THE ORDER
OF THE R2 IN TA.NO.165/10 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2
P4B: COPY OF THE RESTORATION PETITION DATED 8/3/13 AGAINST THE ORDER
OF THE R2 IN TA.NO.166/10 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R2
P5: COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION DATED 8/3/13 AGAINST THE
ORDER OF THE R2 IN TA.NO.164/10 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
R2
P5A: COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION DATED 8/3/13 AGAINST THE
ORDER OF THE R2 IN TA.NO.165/10 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
R2
PJ
....2/-
..2..
WP(C).No. 9139 of 2015 (N)
--------------------------------------
P5B: COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION DATED 8/3/13 AGAINST THE
ORDER OF THE R2 IN TA.NO.166/10 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
R2
P6: COPY OF THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF DELAY CONDONATION PETITION
NO.TA.164/10 TO 166/10 DATED 12/11/14 ISSUED BY THE R2 TO THE
PETITIONER
RESPONDENTS' EXHBIITS
--------------------------------------
NIL.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.S. TO JUDGE
PJ
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
.............................................................
W.P.(C).No.9139 of 2015
.............................................................
Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2015
J U D G M E N T
The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P6 order passed by the 2nd respondent Tribunal, in a restoration application filed by the petitioner for restoring appeals that were dismissed by the said Tribunal. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that on the date when the delay condonation application in the restoration application was posted for hearing before the Tribunal, he had deputed a junior Advocate to represent him before the 2nd respondent Tribunal. Although, the said lawyer appeared before the Tribunal, on account of the fact that the said lawyer was not holding a vakkalath on behalf of the assessee, the 2nd respondent Tribunal refused to consider the plea for adjournment put forth by the said counsel, and proceeded to dismiss the delay condonation application as well as the restoration application.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, and in particular, the submission of counsel for the petitioner that the reasons given in W.P.(C).No.9139 of 2015 2 Ext.P6 order for rejecting the restoration application are wholly technical in nature, I quash Ext.P6 order and direct the 2nd respondent Tribunal to consider the restoration application, as also the delay condonation application, preferred by the petitioner afresh after hearing the petitioner. The 2nd respondent Tribunal shall pass fresh orders as directed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. To enable the 2nd respondent tribunal to do this, I direct the petitioner or his authorised representative to appear before the 2nd respondent Tribunal at 11 am on 16.04.2015.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns W.P.(C).No.9139 of 2015 3