P.V. Chandran, Managing Partner, Kairali Rubber Works V. Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax, Kannur and Additional Sales Tax Officer-II, Taliparamba and Special Deputy Tahsildar, Taliparamba and Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Kannur

OP/4620/2001

AI Insights

The case involves P.V. Chandran, the managing partner of Kairali Rubber Works, who challenged the revised assessment order and a demand notice issued under the K.G.S.T. Act for the year 1988-89. The dispute centered on the tax levied on the purchase turnover of raw rubber and other goods. The petitioner argued that a previous judgment had set aside demands at a higher tax rate, but did not address the relief of purchase tax. The court found that the petitioner had the right to appeal against the assessment order but failed to do so, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2008] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 813035 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2008
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: OP.14494/94
• Laws Referred To: K.G.S.T. Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GOVERNMENT PLEADER
• Assessee Lawyers: M VIJAYA KUMAR; M RAMESH CHANDER
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Tax Levy; Purchase turnover; Raw rubber; Appeal right
• Section: 1988-89

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN MONDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2008 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 4620 of 2001(Y) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- P.V.CHANDRAN, MANAGING PARTNER, KAIRALI RUBBER WORKS,L PUZHKKULANGARA, P.O.TALIPARAMBA. ADDL.1. T.C.VIJAYAKUMARI, W/O.LATE P.V.CHANDRAN, PANCHAMI, NEAR SIVA TEMPLE, PUZHAKULANGARA, TALIPARAMBA. \" 2. T.C.SANGEETHA, D/O.P.V.CHANDRAN, AGED 24 YEARS, -DO- -DO- \" 3. T.C.SAJITHA, D/O.P.V.CHANDRAN, AGED 22 YEARS, -DO- -DO- \" 4. T.C.SANJAY, D/O.P.V.CHANDRAN, AGED 26 YEARS, -DO- -DO- (ADDL.PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER ON I.A.NO.2242/07 DATED 17/3/2008) BY ADV. SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENTS: ----------- 1. APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX, KANNUR. 2. ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER-II, TALIPARAMBA. 3. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR. TALIPARAMBA. 4. APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP.7660/2001 IN O.P.NO.4620/2001 --------- Dismissed 17/3/2008 Sd/- P.R.RAMAN,JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COY OF THE ORDER OF ASST. COMMISSIONER, AIT & ST, KANNUR. EXT.P2 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF ORDER OF ADDL. SALES TAX OFFICER-II, TALIPARAMBA. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE ASST. COMMISSIONER. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN OP.14494/94 DATED 29/5/2000. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RLESPONDENT DTD. 22/6/2000. EXT.P7 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF PETITION BEFORE THE ADDL. SALES TAX OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA. EXT.P8 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY SPL.DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, DTD,. 30/1/2007. P.R.RAMAN, J. --------------------------- O.P.No.4620 OF 2001 ---------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the K.G.S.T. Act. He challenges Ext.P6 order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as also Ext.P8 demand notice. Ext.P6 is the assessment order for the year 1988-89. It is the revised order of assessment. The dispute before the appellate Authority was that with regard to the levy of tax on the purchase turnover of raw rubber for the period from 1/4/1988 to 31/8/1988 amounting to Rs.1,91,600/- and the purchase turnover of other goods of Rs.13,160/-. It was held that no corroborating evidence to prove the case was adduced and further that the appellant was absent, in spite of repeated notice. Petitioner did not seek to challenge Ext.P6 order by filing further appeal. 2. The petitioner submits that the assessment order was set aside by this Court earlier in the writ petition and reference is made to Ext.P5 judgment. But Ext.P5 judgment only set aside the demands in so far as the demands are at higher rate of tax. Whether the relief of purchase tax be given or not was not even considered and further there is a right of appeal -2- O.P..No.4620/2001 to the petitioner, if he is aggrieved by the order impugned. In the circumstances, the original petition is dismissed without prejudice to his right of appeal. The period during which this original petition was pending before this Court will stand excluded for calculating the period of limitation in filing the appeal, if any, filed. Sd/- P.R.RAMAN, Judge. kcv. -3- O.P..No.4620/2001 P.R.RAMAN, J. ------------------------- O.P.No.4620 OF 2001 ------------------------- JUDGMENT 17th March, 2008 -4- O.P..No.4620/2001 -5- O.P..No.4620/2001 P.R.RAMAN, J. -------------------------- O.P.NO.4620 OF 2001 -------------------------- JUDGMENT 17th March, 2007 -6- O.P..No.4620/2001 "