M/S. KAVUNKAL GRANITES [P] LTD V. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/38498/2017

AI Insights

The case involves M/S. Kavunkal Granites [P] Ltd, represented by its managing director, Sabu Kuriakose, who challenged a penalty order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The petitioner had initially paid 20% of the penalty amount and sought a second revision against the penalty, which was delayed by 22 days. The court considered the delay satisfactory given the circumstances and the partial payment already made, leading to the decision to condone the delay and direct further proceedings on the stay petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755383 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Kerala Value Added Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SHAMSUDEEN; GEORGE THOMAS; AMAL GEORGE
• Assessee Lawyers: AJI DEV; O A NURIYA
• Keywords: Commercial Taxes; Delay condonation; Penalty order; Revision; Stay Petition
• Section: 87/15-16

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAY ASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939 WP(C).No. 38498 of 2017 (J) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M/S. KAVUNKAL GRANITES [P] LTD MALAYALAPUZHA-ERAM-PO, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SABU KURIAKOSE. BY ADVS.SRI.AJI V.DEV SMT.O.A.NURIYA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MINI CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA.689645. 2. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, RANNY.686101 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MINI CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA. 689645. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES TAX TOWER, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695002 5. THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX AGRL:INCOME TAX & SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, PGP LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. PBS WP(C).No. 38498 of 2017 (J) -------------------------------------- 6. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MINI CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA.689645. 7. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, RANNI.689674 R1 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SHAMSUDEEN V.K. R7 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA)(SENIOR) ADV. SRI.AMAL GEORGE, SC, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PBS WP(C).No. 38498 of 2017 (J) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF PENALTY PASSED FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 30.3.2016 CR 87/15-16 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST REVISION ORDER PASSED FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 24.10.2016. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND REVISION FILED FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 17.1.2017. EXHIBIT P3(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED FOR 2015-16 DATED 17.1.2017 EXHIBIT P3(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION FILED FOR 2015-16 DATED 17.1.2017 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED IN FORM 23B BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 13.11.2017. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 24.11.2017. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE PBS A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ***************************************************************** W.P.(C) No.38498 of 2017 ***************************************************************** Dated this the 30th day of November, 2017 J U D G M E N T Against Ext.P1 penalty order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred a revision before the Revision authority, but the same was dismissed by Ext.P2 order. The petitioner therefore preferred Ext.P3 second revision together with Ext.P3(a) stay petition and Ext.P3(b) delay condonation petition before the 4th respondent. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay occasioned in preferring the revision is only of 22 days, and 20% of the amounts confirmed by Ext.P1 penalty order has already been paid at the first revision stage. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents and also the Standing counsel appearing for the respondent bank. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar and taking note of the -2- W.P.(C). No.38498 of 2017 submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay occasioned is only of 22 days, and finding the explanation of the learned counsel for the petitioner to be satisfactory, and also taking note that 20% of the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 penalty order has already been paid at the first revision stage, I condone the delay occasioned in filing the revision, and dispose the writ petition with the following directions. (i). The 5th respondent, before whom Ext.P3 revision is now pending, shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P3(a) stay petition within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. (ii). Recovery steps, pursuant to Exts.P4 and P5 notices, for recovery of amounts confirmed against petitioner by Ext.P1 penalty order shall be kept in abeyance till such time orders are passed by the 5th respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner. (iii). The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, together with a copy of the writ petition before the 5th respondent, for further action. (iv). It is made clear that during the period when -3- W.P.(C). No.38498 of 2017 the stay granted in this judgment is in operation, the petitioner shall also be permitted operate the bank account mentioned in Ext.P5 notice. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE nkr/30.11.2017 "