P.K. RAJAN V. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/10719/2012

AI Insights

The case involves P.K. Rajan, the proprietor of M/S. Peravoor Traders, who filed a writ petition against the demand notice issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, Kuthuparamba. The petitioner contested that the demand notice dated 9.8.2004 (Exhibit P8) was based on an incorrect assessment, as a subsequent modified assessment (Exhibit P4) showed a lesser amount due. Additionally, the petitioner argued that a payment of ".2 lakhs" made on 9.7.2007, as per an interim order in another writ petition, was not credited, which should have reduced the interest liability from that date. The court considered the modifications in the assessment and the age of the demand notice and directed a review of the petitioner's representation regarding the demand notice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 727050 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-05-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUNJACHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: T M SREEDHARAN; NISHA JOHN; V P NARAYANAN; BOBY SEKHAR
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Demand notice; Revenue recovery; Modification of notice

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MAY 2012/21ST VAISAKHA 1934 W.P.(C).No.10719 of 2012 (L) ------------------------------------------------ PETITIONER:- ---------------------- P.K. RAJAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S. PERAVOOR TRADERS, PERAVOOR, KUTHUPARAMBA. BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SMT.NISHA JOHN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KUTHUPARAMBA, PIN-670 643. 2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MARIYAMBI BUILDINGS, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 032. 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY) HOSDURG, PIN-671 134. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- WP(C).NO.10719 OF 2012. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- ------------------------------------- EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 8.3.2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IN STA NO.333/2007 DATED 26.11.2008/. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN T.A.NO.8/2011 DATED 8.11.2011. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.35183015/98-99 DATED 10.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 26.06.2007 IN W.P.(C) NO.11668 OF 2007 OF THIS COURT. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.96255 DATED 9.7.2007 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, HOSDURG. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.5.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 9.8.2004 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- ---------------------------------------- NIL. - TRUE COPY - K. Vinod Chandran, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10719 of 2012-L ---------------------------------------- Dated this, the 11th day of May, 2012 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibit P8 demand notice issued on 9.8.2004. The contention of the petitioner is that by Exhibit P4, the assessing officer had modified the order of assessment in compliance with the order of the first appellate authority. The amounts due as per Exhibit P4 issued on 10.10.2010 is lesser than the amount shown in the recovery notice dated 9.8.2004 (Exhibit P8). The petitioner also has a further contention that pursuant to Exhibit P5 interim order in another writ petition, the petitioner had remitted an amount of `.2 lakhs on 09.07.2007, evidenced by Exhibit P6. The said amounts also have not been given credit, and the petitioner contends that there will be reduction in his interest liability also from that date. The petitioner has filed Exhibit P7 representation before the 1st respondent seeking modification of the notice of demand in accordance with the facts stated above. 2. Considering the fact that the assessment itself has been modified on appeal and that the demand notice issued is of the year 2004, it is directed that the 1st respondent consider WP(C).No.10719 of 2012 - 2 - Exhibit P7 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent within a week of receipt of the same. On the petitioner producing the judgment before the 1st respondent, the recovery proceedings initiated as per Exhibit P8 shall be kept in abeyance till orders are passed on Exhibit P7. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran, Judge. vku/- - true copy - "