R.LATHA V. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

WP(C)/29765/2007

AI Insights

The case involves R. Latha, the proprietrix of Kalyan Radymades, who filed a writ petition against the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the Intelligence Officer, challenging the penalty orders (Exts. P15 to P18) issued under the K.G.S.T. Act. The petitioner argued that the first respondent had improperly disagreed with the findings of the Appellate Tribunal in Ext. P14, which led to the subsequent penalty orders. The court, however, found that the petitioner had not availed the statutory remedies available against these orders and had also not challenged the Ext. P14 order in a timely manner, which had become final. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, advising the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedies.

• Counselvise Citation: [2007] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 693427 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2007
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: K.G.S.T. Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K PRADEEP
• Assessee Lawyers: M MENON; K JAMALUDHEEN; LATHA PRABHAKARAN
• Keywords: Competency; Jurisdiction; Penalty; Statutory remedies; Writ petition

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2007 / 24TH ASWINA 1929 WP(C).No. 29765 of 2007(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ R.LATHA, PROPRIETRIX, KALYAN RADYMADES, ROUND SOUTH, TRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. BY ADV. SRI.M.UNNIKRISHNA MENON SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD-I, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE), AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX, CIVIL LANE, AYYANTHOL, TRISSUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. K.P. PRADEEP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/10/2007, THE COURT ON 16-10-2007 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 29765 OF 2007 R = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th October, 2007 J U D G M E N T The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Exts. P15 to P18 and to declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay the penalty imposed by the aforesaid orders. 2. Exts. P15 to P18 are the orders issued by the 2nd respondent imposing penalty on the petitioner for violation of the provisions of the K.G.S.T. Act. Though statutory remedies are provided against Exts. P15 to P18 that has not been availed of by the petitioner. Instead, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner for not availing of the statutory remedies, is that following Exts. P10 and P11, when the 1st respondent considered the matter and issued Ext. p14 order, the 1st respondent had disagreed with the findings of the Appellate Tribunal. Counsel would contend that since the 1st respondent was not W.P.(C) No. 29765OF 2007 -2- competent to disagree with the conclusions of the Appellate Tribunal, consequential orders Exts. P15 to P18 are without jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel, in view of this the petitioner is not bound to pursue the statutory remedy and can maintain the writ petition. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In my view the petitioner has to be relegated to pursue the statutory remedies against Exts. P15 to P18. As far as the question regarding the competency of the 1st respondent to disagree with the findings in Exts. P10 and P11 orders of the Tribunal is concerned, that also is a matter which the authority can examine once the petitioner takes recourse to the statutory remedies. Although the petitioner has raised objections to Ext. P14, the said order is dated 19-11-2005 and the petitioner has not challenged the said order till date and this order has become final. The fact that Ext. P14 is an order of remand does not mean that the petitioner should not have challenged the objectionable part of Ext. P14 in time. W.P.(C) No. 29765OF 2007 -3- 5. Therefore, prima facie, I am not inclined to allow the petitioner to argue on the merits of Ext. P14 at this distance of time. However, I do not enter into a conclusive finding on this aspect as otherwise it will prejudicially affect the petitioner in the further proceedings that he may initiate against the impugned orders. 6. Therefore, I do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition. Relegating the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy and leaving open the contentions raised this writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/- "