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 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Abdul Rahim Tharayil vs The Superintendent on 3 April, 2025

Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas

Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas

WP(C) NO. 17435 OF 2024
                                    1




                                                     2025:KER:28638
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

    THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947

                          WP(C) NO. 17435 OF 2024

PETITIONER(S) :

             ABDUL RAHIM THARAYIL,
             AGED 37 YEARS
             PROPRIETOR, M/S. THARAYIL CEMENT AGENCIES,
             MP-XI/457-B, GROUND FLOOR, MAIN ROAD,
             KOOTILANGADI, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679 324.


             BY ADVS.
             R.SREEJITH
             K.KRISHNA
             ACHYUTH MENON
             PADMANATHAN K.V.




RESPONDENT(S) :

             THE SUPERINTENDENT,
             CENTRAL TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE,
             PERINTHALMANNA RANGE, AWWAL TOWER,
             MIDDLE HILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 505.


             BY ADVS.
             THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL
             SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC
             SREELAL WARRIAR



THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 17435 OF 2024
                                            2




                                                                          2025:KER:28638



                         BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
                   ......................................................
                          W.P.(C) No.17435 of 2024
                     ...................................................
                   Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2025



                                     JUDGMENT

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner does not intend to pursue the writ petition, since the petitioner has already availed the benefit under the Amnesty Scheme and a memo to that effect has also bee filed.

2. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed as not pressed in terms of the memo.

sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AMV/04/04/2025