T.I. Raju vs Commercial Tax Officer on 13 July, 2009

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

T.I. Raju vs Commercial Tax Officer on 13 July, 2009

Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 18023 of 2009(W)



1. T.I. RAJU
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-1
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM)

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :13/07/2009

 O R D E R
                 P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    W.P. (C) Nos. 18023 of 2009
                          and 18047 of 2009
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                Dated, this the 13th day of July, 2009

                              JUDGMENT

The main case put forth by the petitioner in both these cases is against the constitutional validity of Section 17 D of the KGST Act, which has been considered by this Court and answered against the assessee as per the decision rendered by this Court in Viani Paper Mills Vs. Fast Track Team (2008 (1) KLT 511). This being the position, the consequential prayers are not liable to be entertained and the remedy of the petitioners, if any, can only be by challenging the impugned orders availing the statutory remedy.

2. There is yet another case for the petitioner that, the impugned orders Exts. P7 and P8, though stated as passed by a team consisting of 4 members, it has been signed only by one person, which is not in conformity with the statutory requirement.

3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit asserting that, the concerned orders have been passed by a team consisting of 4 members and all of them have subscribed their signature to the original order. Exts.P7 and P8 are only the copies of the orders forwarded to the petitioners under the signature of one of the officers concerned, making it clear that the order actually contained the signature of the all the persons concerned.

WP (C) Nos. 18023 of 2009 & 18047 of 2009 : 2 :

4. This being the position, the challenge raised by the petitioners on this count also does not stand at all. In the above circumstances, inference is declined and the Writ Petitions are dismissed. This will be without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to avail the appropriate remedy as available under the statute.

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court