M/S. COCONUT LAGOON V. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (LUXURY TAX)

WA/1730/2013

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Coconut Lagoon Unit of Hotel & Allied Trades (P) Ltd, represented by its authorized signatory Sri. Michael Dominic, as the appellant, challenging the orders issued by the Commercial Tax Officer (Luxury Tax) and the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kottayam. The appellant sought to quash several orders (Ext.P20 to P25) and to stay further coercive actions until the disposal of the writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, prompting the appellant to file this writ appeal. The main legal contention revolved around the applicability of interest provisions introduced by the Finance Act, 2001, to assessments of earlier years, which the appellant argued should not be applicable.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 693443 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, Commissioner of Income-tax V. Goslino Mario and others, Sedco Forex International Drill INC and others V. Commissioner of Income-tax and another
• Laws Referred To: Finance Act, 2001
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SUBASHAN PULLIL
• Assessee Lawyers: MICHAEL DOMINIC
• Keywords: Assessment; Coercive Action; Interest Provision; Writ of Certiorari; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 120 ITR 921; 241 ITR 312; 279 ITR 310

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935 WA.No. 1730 of 2013 IN WP(C).25653/2013 -------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 25653/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------- M/S. COCONUT LAGOON UNIT OF HOTEL & ALLIED TRADES (P) LTD, CASINO HOTEL, WILLINGTON ISLAND KOCHI - 682003.REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI.MICHAEL DOMINIC. BY ADVS.SRI.AJI V.DEV SRI.SUSHANTH.J. RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (LUXURY TAX) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM - 686 002. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM - 686 002 BY SPL.G.P.SRI.SUBASHAN CHAMPA PULLIL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & A. HARIPRASAD, JJ. =.=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=.= W.A. No. 1730 of 2013 =.=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=.= Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2013 JUDGMENT K. M. JOSEPH, J. Petitioner is the appellant. The writ petition was filed seeking the following prayers:- “i. call for the records connected with the case and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ direction to quash the Ext.P20, P21, P22, P23, P24 and P25 orders. ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order directing the 1st respondent to keep further coercive action in pursuance of Ext-P20, P21, P22, P23, P24 & P25 orders in abeyance till disposal of the writ petition. iii. issue any other writ, direction or order found fit and proper by this Honourable Court on the facts and in the circumstances of this case.” 2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition reserving the right of the appellant to approach WA 1730/2013 2 the competent appellate authority. Aggrieved by the above, the appellant has approached this Court. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special Government Pleader. 4. No doubt learned counsel for the appellant would point out that each assessment must be decided with reference to the law applicable for that assessment and in this regard reference is placed on decisions of the Apex Court reported in Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, (1979) 120 ITR 921, Commissioner of Income-tax V. Goslino Mario and others, (2000) 241 ITR 312 and Sedco Forex International Drill INC and others V. Commissioner of Income-tax and another, (2005) 279 ITR 310. According to him, provision relating to interest was introduced only by Finance Act, 2001 and therefore provision relating to interest cannot be utilized in regard to the assessment of the two earlier years. Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader points out that interest actually, is levied only for the period much after insertion of the WA 1730/2013 3 provision. We feel that this is a matter which, as noted by the learned Single Judge can be urged before the appellate authority. We find no reason to take a different view. 5. Without prejudice the right of the appellant to approach the appellate forum, the appeal is dismissed. The appellate authority, if appeal is filed, may take note of the pendency of the proceedings by way of writ petition and writ appeal in the matter of condoning the delay. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE. A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE. nkm. "