By Adv. Sri.harisankar v. Menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2011 / 21ST ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26447 of 2011(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.V. JOSE, M/S.P.B.S. TRADERS, KOTTEKKULAM, VADAKKANCHERRY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON, SMT.MEERA V.MENON, SRI.MAHESH V.MENON. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ALATHUR- 678 541. 2. APPELLATE ASST. COMMISSIONER -11, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD- 678 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 26447 of 2011(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2003-04 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2004-05 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8COPY OF STATEMENT OF THE SALES DETAILS OF THE PETITIONER FOR 2003-04.FOR 2003-04. EXHIBIT P9COPY OF STATEMENT OF THE SALES DETAILS OF THE PETITIONER FOR 2004-05. FOR 2004-05. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// rs P.A. TO JUDGE S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.26447 OF 2011---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13[th] day of October, 2011JUDGMENT By Exts.P1 and P2 assessment orders, the petitioner wasassessed to tax under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act for theyears 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. The petitioner filed appealsagainst the same, which are Exts.P3 and P4. In the said appeals,the petitioner has challenged the entire turn over assessed andthe tax demanded. However, by Ext.P7 common order, theappeals were dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has notpaid the admitted tax. The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order.According to the petitioner, the petitioner has not filed anyreturns and the petitioner has challenged the entire turnoverassessed in the assessment orders and therefore, there is noquestion of paying any admitted tax. The petitioner, therefore,submits that Ext.P7 is liable to be quashed and the appeals areliable to be directed to be considered on merits. 2.The learned Government Pleader points out that in the W.P.(C)No.26447/11 writ petition, the petitioner admits the liability to the extent ofRs.21,576 for 2003-2004 and Rs.48,274/- for 2004-2005 andtherefore, at least that amount is to be paid as demanded tax. 3.I have considered the rival contentions in detail.Going by the appeals filed by the petitioner, of course thepetitioner has challenged the entire turnover and the taxassessed. Therefore, there is considerable merit in thecontention raised by the petitioner. The counsel for thepetitioner submits that pursuant to revenue recoveryproceedings petitioner has already paid more than Rs.1 lakh. 4.In the above circumstances, this writ petition isdisposed of as follows: Ext.P7 order of the 2[nd] respondent is quashed. The 2[nd]respondent is directed to restore the appeals to file anddispose of the same in accordance with law on merits. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE