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 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

M/S. Manjeri Supari Traders vs The Assistant Commissioner ... on 20 November, 2017

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 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/29TH KARTHIKA, 1939

                       WP(C).No. 37175 of 2017 (V)
                       ----------------------------


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

            M/S. MANJERI SUPARI TRADERS
            VADAKKEPARAMBA, CHENGARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
            MANAGING PARTNER,
            HAMSA HAJI


            BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON
                    SMT.MEERA V.MENON

RESPONDENTS:
--------------

           1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER [ASSESSMENT]
              STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT
              MALAPPURAM - 676 505.

           2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER STATE TAXED
              STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT
              MALAPPURAM - 676 505.


           3. THE COMMISSIONER,
              DEPARTMENT OF STATE GST
              KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.




            BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHAMSUDEEN V.K.

        THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION   ON
20-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 37175 of 2017 (V)

                              APPENDIX


PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

P1:   COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12

P1(A):COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-
      13.

P1(B):COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR
      2013-14.

P1(C):COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR
      2014-15.

P2:   COPY OF REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
      3RD RESPONDENT.

P2(a): COPY OF REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD
      RESPONDENT.


P2(b): COPY OF REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD
      RESPONDENT.

P2(c): COPY OF REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD
      RESPONDENT.

P3: COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD
      RESPONDENT.

P3(a):COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD
      RESPONDENT.

P3(b):COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD
      RESPONDENT.

P3(c):COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD
      RESPONDENT.

P4: COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD
      RESPONDENT.

P4(a):COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
      3RD RESPONDENT.

P4(b):COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
      3RD RESPONDENT.

P4(c):COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
      3RD RESPONDENT.


RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL



      \\ TRUE COPY \\
      PA TO JUDGEs
jm/

                A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
                 ===========================================

                   W.P.(C). No. 37175 of 2017 (V)
            =====================================================

           Dated this the 20th day of November, 2017


                              JUDGMENT

Against Ext.P1 series of orders cancelling an assessment under Section 56 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the KVAT Act, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 series of revisions and Ext.P4 series of stay petitions along with Ext.P3 series of delay condonation petitions before the 3rd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that even before the consideration of the stay petition by the 3rd respondent, steps have been initiated for proceeding against the petitioner pursuant to Ext. P1 series of orders. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay is only 46 days in filing the revision.

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, and taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay is only of 46 days and finding that the explanation given by the -2- W.P.(C). No. 37175 of 2017 (V) learned counsel for the petitioner for the delay occasioned to be satisfactory, I condone the delay of 46 days in filing the revisions and dispose the writ petition with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 series of stay petition preferred by the petitioner before him, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 series of orders shall be kept in abeyance till such time as the 3rd respondent passes orders as directed and communicates the same to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent for further action.

Sd/-

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE das/ 20.11.2017