Kerala High Court
Driplex Water Engineering Ltd vs Intelligence Inspector on 12 December, 2017
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1939
WP(C).No. 39874 of 2017 (H)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------
DRIPLEX WATER ENGINEERING LTD,
C/O.BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION KOCHI REFINERY,
ERNAKULAM- 682302, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, SRI M NARAYANAN KUTTY
BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR,
SQUAD NO III,
COMMERCIAL TAXES,
ERNAKULAM, PIN 682015.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS),
COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682015.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI SHAMSUDHEEN.V.K.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
K.V.
WP(C).No. 39874 of 2017 (H)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF PENALTY ORDER DTD 7/8/2017 FOR THE YEAR 2016-
17 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DTD 8/12/2017 AGAINST
EXT P1
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION DTD 8/12/2017
IN EXT P2 APPEAL
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DTD 8/12/2017 IN EXT P2
APPEAL
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL
-----------------------
/TRUE COPY/
K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.39874 of 2017-H.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 12th day of December, 2017
J U D G M E N T
Challenging Ext.P1 order imposing penalty on the petitioner under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (the Act), the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal invoking Section 55 of the Act before the second respondent. Ext.P3 is the application preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2 appeal for condonation of the delay of 27 days in filing the appeal and Ext.P4 is the application preferred by the petitioner for stay of further proceedings pursuant to the order impugned in the appeal. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the inaction on the part of the second respondent in taking a decision on Exts.P3 and P4 applications. It is alleged that steps have already been taken for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 order from the petitioner.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in so far as the delay in filing Ext.P3 appeal is only 27 days, WP.(C).No.39874/2017-H. 2 I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to condone the delay in filing the appeal and pass orders on Ext.P4 application for stay, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that till orders are passed on Ext.P4 application, further proceedings for realization of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 order shall be deferred by the respondents concerned.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Kvs/-
// true copy //