M/S.ARACKAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY V. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX

WP(C)/34008/2009

AI Insights

M/S Arackal Charitable Society filed a writ petition against the imposition of a penalty under Section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, for allegedly failing to file a monthly return. The society argued that it had suspended business activities and filed an annual return showing nil turnover, despite this, a penalty was imposed and recovery steps were initiated. The society had already filed an appeal and an application for condonation of delay with the appellate authority, which were still pending. The High Court did not delve into the merits of the case but focused on the procedural aspect, directing the appellate authority to expedite the consideration of the delay condonation and the subsequent appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 700947 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2009
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: V K SHAMSUDHEEN
• Assessee Lawyers: V P SUKUMAR; V NARASIMHAM
• Keywords: Appeal; Condonation of delay; Monthly return; Penalty; Suspension of business activity
• Section: 67

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34008 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S ARACKAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY, REG.NO.A 238/04, ERAMALLOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY N.M.ASHARAF. BY ADVS. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR SRI.V.DEVANANDA NARASIMHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KUTHIYATHODU. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: shg/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 34008 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Against Ext.P7 order imposing penalty under Section 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) the petitioner had filed Ext.P8 appeal and Ext.P9 application for stay, before the statutory appellate authority, the 2nd respondent. The appeal was filed along with a petition seeking condonation of delay as evidenced by Ext.P10. It is submitted that the appeal as well as the accompanying applications are pending consideration and disposal before the 2nd respondent. Grievance of the petitioner is that steps have now been initiated pursuant to Ext.P11 notice for realisation of the amount of penalty without taking note of pendency of the appeal. 2. According to the petitioner the penalty was imposed alleging failure to file monthly return. It is the case of the petitioner that he had intimated about W.P.(C)No. 34008 of 2009 -2- suspension of business activity, inspite of the fact that he filed application for renewal of registration for the subsequent years, under expectation that the business could be revived. He had also filed annual return showing nil turnover. Under the above circumstances contention of the petitioner is that imposition of penalty is totally unwarranted. However, since the matter is pending consideration before the appellate authority, I am not entering into any findings regarding merits of the contentions. I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of on issuing necessary directions to the appellate authority. 3. In the result, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P10 application filed seeking condonation of delay, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the delay is condoned, the 2nd respondent shall proceed to consider and pass appropriate W.P.(C)No. 34008 of 2009 -3- orders on Ext.P8 appeal itself, at the earliest possible, at any rate within one month thereafter. 3. Respondents are directed to keep in abeyance further steps for recovery initiated pursuant to Ext.P11 notice, till orders are issued by the 2nd respondent either on the delay condonation application as directed above in case the appeal is admitted, then till the disposal of the appeal. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/ "