M/S HOTEL WHITE CITY V. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

OP (TAX)/52/2016

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Hotel White City, the petitioner, challenging the decision of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had dismissed their appeal due to a delay in filing. The delay was attributed to the collapse of the petitioner's business. The High Court, considering the circumstances, found the explanation plausible and sufficient for condonation of the delay, but imposed a condition of payment of costs to the State. The case highlights the court's discretion in allowing condonation of delay under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the need for balancing procedural requirements with substantive justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755497 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 227 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MOHAMMED RAFIQ
• Assessee Lawyers: S; P S SOMAN; T RADHAMANY
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Penalty proceedings; Collapse of business

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/6TH ASWINA, 1938 OP (TAX).No. 52 of 2016 (Q) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------- M/S HOTEL WHITE CITY THEKKENALUVAZHY, NORTH PARAVUR REPRESENTED BY P.B. ABHILASH, MG. PARTNER. BY ADVS.SRI.S.SUDHEER (K/417/1984) SRI.P.S.SOMAN SMT.T.RADHAMANY RESPONDENTS: -------------- 1. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682011. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM PIN- 683513. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ THIS OP TAX HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP (TAX).No. 52 of 2016 (Q) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.07.2014. EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31.03.2016. EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31.03.2016. EXT. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 09.06.2016. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS --------------------- NIL /True Copy/ P.A. to Judge THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P.(Tax).No.52 of 2016 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of September, 2016 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Heard. 2. This original petition is filed invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is filed challenging the decision of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing an appeal filed by the assessee as a consequence of dismissal of the application seeking condonation of delay of 77 days. 3. The assessee's appeal before the Tribunal was one arising from penalty proceedings. We have seen the ground raised as cause for condonation of delay. The petitioner has pleaded before the Tribunal that collapse of business is the reason for the delay. We take it as a plausible explanation and therefore sufficient cause for the purpose of condonation of delay, however, on terms and without creating a precedent in that regard. O.P.(Tax).No.52/16 2 4. In the result, Ext.P4 order is set aside on condition that the petitioner pays the State through the Assessing Officer concerned an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as costs within a period of three weeks. If such costs are paid, the impugned order will stand set aside and the application seeking condonation of delay in instituting T.A.No.21 of 2016 before the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam, that is to say, INT.P.No.36 of 2016 will stand allowed. Consequently, T.A.No.21 of 2016 would then be taken up and decided by the Tribunal, in accordance with law. The parties are directed to mark appearance before the Tribunal on 18.10.2016. Proof of payment of costs shall also be furnished before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to conclude the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This original petition is ordered accordingly. sd/- Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge sd/- Anu Sivaraman, Judge sj29/9 "