E.SAIDALAVI V. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/4147/2012

AI Insights

The case involves E. Saidalavi, the proprietor of Rafeeque Agencies, who challenged a conditional order issued by the appellate authority regarding a tax assessment for the year 2008-2009. The petitioner contested the legality of the penalty orders (Exts.P1 and P2) and the subsequent assessment order (Ext.P3), which were all related to tax demands. The appellate authority had granted a stay (Ext.P6) on the condition of remitting 40% of the demanded tax and securing the balance. The petitioner argued that the penalty and assessment orders were illegal, which was deemed premature by the court as these matters were still under appeal before the appellate authority.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 693518 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Revenue Recovery Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SOBHA EAPEN
• Assessee Lawyers: N NAIR; V K SHAMUSUDHEEN
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Conditional Order; Penalty order; Stay Petition; Tax demand
• Section: 7

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/2ND PHALGUNA 1933 WP(C).No. 4147 of 2012 (P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- E. SAIDALAVI, PROP: RAFEEQUE AGENCIES, KOTTAKKAL MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE, MANJERI AT KOTTAKKAL- 676 503. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD- 678 001. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MALAPPURAM AT MANJERI- 676 121. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SOBHA ANNAMMA EAPEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. WP(C).No. 4147 of 2012 (P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.III, MALAPPURAM AT KOTTAKKAL, FOR THE YEAR 2008-2009 DATED 10.01.2010. EXT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.III, MALAPPURAM AT KOTTAKKAL, FOR THE YEAR 2008-2009 DATED 11.05.2009. EXT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2008-2009 DATED 23.08.2011. EXT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21.11.2011. EXT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21.11.2011. EXT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2008-2009 DATED 23.01.2012. EXT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2008-2009 DATED 06-12-2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.4147 OF 2012(P) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of February, 2012 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6, a conditional order passed by the appellate authority directing the petitioner to remit 40% of the tax demanded and furnish security for the balance. Pleadings in the writ petition show that Ext.P3 order of assessment was passed pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 penalty orders imposed, against which also appeals filed are pending. It is in the stay petition filed along with Ext.P4 that Ext.P6 order of stay has been passed. Contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that Exts.P1 and P2 penalty orders are illegal and therefore the assessment order is also illegal. In my view these are matters which the respective appellate authority which is ceased of the appeal filed by the petitioner to consider and it is premature for the petitioner to urge these contentions before this court. At this stage the only question is whether the appellate authority committed any illegality in WPC.No.4147/2012 :2 : directing the petitioner to pay 40% of the amount due. A reading of Ext.P6 shows that considering the contentions raised and on being satisfied of the prima facie case, stay order has been granted exercising its discretionary power. Therefore, I am not persuaded to think that there is any perversity to warrant interference. Be that as it may the time for compliance of the directions in Ext.P6 will stand extended by two weeks from today. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ "