MOHAMMED FAIZAL V. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/2254/2013

AI Insights

The petitioner, Mohammed Faizal, challenged the assessment orders for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12 issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Kottakkal. After filing appeals against these orders, which were belated, the petitioner also filed applications to condone the delay. The appellate authority had not yet decided on these applications when a demand notice for tax recovery was issued. The writ petition sought to stay the recovery process until the appeals were resolved.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 693626 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Revenue Recovery Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SHOBA EAPEN
• Assessee Lawyers: N NAIR; V K SHAMUSUDHEEN
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Delay condonation; Demand notice; Stay Petition
• Section: 7

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2013/3RD MAGHA 1934 WP(C).No. 2254 of 2013 (F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- MOHAMMED FAIZAL, MONEY BUDGET,SMART TRADE CITY,KOTTAKKAL MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. MOHAMMED SHAREEF. BY ADVS.SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE 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.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 2254 of 2013 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 30.3.2012. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YER 2011-2012 DATED 5.9.2012. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 12.1.2013. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 12.1.2013. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 12.1.2013. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 12.1.2013. EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 12.1.2013. EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 12.1.2013. EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEARS 2010-11 AND 2011-12 DATED 22.12.2012. /true copy/ sd/- P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ........................................ W.P.(C).2254/2013 .............................................. Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2013 JUDGMENT Challenging Exts.P1 and P2 assessment orders passed against the petitioner for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12, petitioner filed Exts.P3 and P4 appeals along with Exts.P5 and P6 stay petitions. Appeals were filed belatedly and therefore, he also filed Exts.P7 and P8 applications to condone delay of 98 days. Orders have not been passed on the appeals or the other applications. While so, Ext.P9 demand notice has been issued for recovery of the tax due under Exts.P1 and P2. It is therefore, that this writ petition is filed. 2. Unless favourable orders are passed on Exts.P7 and P8 applications filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay, appeals or stay petitions cannot be considered. Therefore, I direct the 2nd respondent, the appellate authority, to pass orders on Exts.P7 and P8. This the appellate authority W.P.(C).2254/13 2 shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks from today. It is ordered that in case delay is condoned, the appellate authority shall proceed to consider Exts.P3 and P4 appeals and orders thereon shall be passed within two months thereafter. In the meanwhile, subject to the petitioner remitting 1/3rd of the tax due under Exts.P1 and P2 within three weeks from today, recovery as per Ext.P9 demand notice will stand stayed pending disposal of the appeals. 3. Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent. Writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mrcs /true copy/ PA To Judge "