M/S.Veni Wood Industries vs The Commercial Tax Officer-I

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Kerala High Court

M/S.Veni Wood Industries vs The Commercial Tax Officer-I

Bench: Antony Dominic

       

  

  

 
 
                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                          PRESENT:

                     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

              WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/25TH ASWINA 1934

                                WP(C).No. 24526 of 2012 (M)
                                    ---------------------------

PETITIONER(S):
-------------

          M/S.VENI WOOD INDUSTRIES, ADOOR 681 523
          REP. BY ITS MANAGER (ACCOUNTS), KUMARAGURU


             BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI

RESPONDENT(S):
--------------

          1.     THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-I,
                 DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ADOOR 681 523

          2.     THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX,
                 APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, EKM 682015


              BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPPEN

            THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-10-2012,
          THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).24526/12


                        APPENDIX


EXHIBITS


P1-   TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32030352584/2009-10 DATED 18/1/12

P2-   TRUE COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER NO.KVAT (A) PTA NO.1549/12 22.5.12

P3-   TRUE COPY OF APPEAL AND GROUNDS DATED 8.10.12

P4-   TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 8.10.12




                        /true copy/ PA To Judge



                     ANTONY DOMINIC, J
                    ........................................
                       W.P.(C).24526/2012
                 ..............................................
           Dated this the 17th day of October, 2012

                             JUDGMENT

Ext.P1 order of assessment for the year 2009-10 was confirmed by the first appellate authority as per Ext.P2. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal and Ext.P4 stay petition which are pending consideration of the 2nd respondent. In the meanwhile, apprehending recovery action the writ petition is filed.

2. Taking note of the pendency of Ext.P4 stay petition before the 2nd respondent, I direct the 2nd respondent to pass orders thereon. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment and in the meanwhile, recovery pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 will be kept in abeyance.

3. Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance.

Writ petition is disposed of.





                          Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE


mrcs

                          /true copy/           PA To Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court