U.V.NOUSHAD V. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

WP(C)/1046/2012

AI Insights

The case involves U.V. Noushad, the son and legal heir of late P Moideen, who is the petitioner, contesting against the Agricultural Income Tax and Commercial Tax Officer and other respondents regarding a penalty order and subsequent recovery actions related to tax disputes. The petitioner challenged a penalty order (Ext.P1) issued against his deceased father for alleged misuse of tax form-18 and unaccounted purchases. The Tribunal's earlier orders (Ext.P2 and Ext.P3) rejecting revisions led to the filing of a writ petition (WPC No. 11012/2011), which resulted in an interim order (Ext.P4) allowing for a restoration application due to non-payment of additional court fees. The restoration application (Ext.P5) was filed but recovery actions were initiated based on the penalty, leading to the current writ petition to halt these actions pending the Tribunal's decision on the restoration application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699554 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SHOBA EAPEN
• Assessee Lawyers: N NAIR; V K SHAMUSUDHEEN
• Keywords: Agricultural income-tax; Coercive Action; Commercial tax; Penalty order; Restoration Application; Revision; Writ petition

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/23RD POUSHA 1933 WPC.No. 1046 of 2012 (E) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- U.V.NOUSHAD SON AND LEGAL HEIR OF LATE P MOIDEEN PROPRIETOR OF AL-AMEEN WOOD INDUSTRIES, KANHANGAD RESIDING AT U.V. HOUSE, AJANUR, KANHANGAD KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER HOSDURG, KASARGOD DISTRICT - 671 121. 2. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005. 3. KERALA AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & SALES TAX APPEALATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 005. 4. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, HOSDURG-671 315. BY S.R.GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 1046/2012 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13/12/2006. P2: COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 11/01/2011. P3: COPY OF THE REVISIONAL ORDER DATED 17/03/2008. P4: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC. NO.11012/2011 DATED 12/04/2011. P5: COPY OF THE RESTORATION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14/05/2011. P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14/06/2011. P7: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 07/10/2011. P8: COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No.1046 of 2012 ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 13th day of January, 2012 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ext.P1 penalty order was passed against the petitioner's deceased father mainly on the ground of unaccounted purchase and misuse of form-18. Revision filed by the petitioner was rejected by Ext.P3 order. Second revision filed was also rejected for technical reasons. At that stage, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this court as writ petition(c).No.11012/2011. In the said writ petition, this court passed Ext.P4 interim order leaving it open to the petitioner to seek restoration of the second revision dismissed for default for non-payment of additional court fee. According to the petitioner in pursuance to the direction in Ext.P4 he filed Ext.P5 application for restoration and subsequently the writ petition was also disposed of taking note of the same. Petitioner states that subsequently the office of the Commissioner transferred Ext.P5 application to W.P.(C) No.1046/2012 : 2 : the 3rd respondent and on its receipt the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P7 to the petitioner's representative. Thus the restoration application filed by the petitioner is pending consideration of the Tribunal and while so recovery action has been initiated and by Ext.P8 he is informed that immovable and immovable property inherited by the petitioner is scheduled to be sold on 2nd February, 2012. It is in these circumstances the writ petition has been filed. 2. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that in Ext.P2 order passed by the Tribunal it has already been found that the sales which are mentioned in Ext.P1 were made with fabricated documents by somebody else and there was no misuse of form 18. In any case these are matters for consideration of the Tribunal as and when Ext.P5 application for restoration is considered and at this stage it is premature for the petitioner to raise this contention before this court. However, having regard to the fact that the restoration application has been field by the petitioner W.P.(C) No.1046/2012 : 3 : pursuant to Ext.P4 order passed by this court which has now received by the Tribunal as per Exts.P6 and P7, I am inclined to think that the coercive action now initiated by Ext.P8 stand suspected until orders are passed by the Tribunal 3. In that view I dispose of this writ petition directing that the 3rd respondent shall consider Ext.P5 application, with notice to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 3 months of receipt of a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. It is directed that in the meanwhile, the sale scheduled as per Ext.P8 shall be kept in abeyance. Petitioner to produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before respondents 3 and 4 for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) vi/ "