Wp(C)/11476/2019 Of Amala Cancer Hospital Society v. The Agricultural Income Tax Officer And Sales Tax Officer
High Court
03 Sep 2019 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/11476/2019 Of Amala Cancer Hospital Society v. The Agricultural Income Tax Officer And Sales Tax Officer
Date of order
03 Sep 2019
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp(C)/11476/2019 Of Amala Cancer Hospital Society v. The Agricultural Income Tax Officer And Sales Tax Officer, the High Court (2019) decided the matter.
Decision: 6.following orders:- The writ petition is disposed of by the a) Ext.P6 is set aside.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI
TUESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 12TH BHADRA, 1941
WP(C).No.11476 OF 2019(H)
PETITIONER:
AMALA CANCER HOSPITAL SOCIETY,AMALA NAGAR, TRISSUR - 680 555, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY FINANCE MANAGER, SRI.BABY SCARIA.
BY SR. ADV. SRI. RAJU JOSEPH
ADV. SRI.C.JOSEPH ANTONY
RESPONDENTS:
BY DR. THUSHARA JAMES, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON03.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. Raju Joseph, the learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner and Dr. Thushara James, the learnedGovernment Pleader for the respondents.
2.The petitioner assails Ext.P6 assessmentorder dated 27.03.2019. The ground of challengeagainst Ext.P6 assessment order is that reply ofpetitioner dated 26.03.2019 and Ext.P5 request arereferred to and without affording opportunity topetitioner, Ext.P6 assessment order dated 27.03.2019was passed by the first respondent. Therefore, thepetitioner contends that Ext.P6 is illegal and violative ofprinciples of natural justice.
The petitioner assails Ext.P6 assessment
3.The writ petition was listed for admission on10.04.2019 and at the request of respondents, the writpetition was adjourned from time to time.
4.The statement of respondents is filed and
after perusing the stand taken in the statement, the
Court directed the respondents to produce the originalfile for inspection of Court. The file is made availablefrom the office of the first respondent.
5.
After perusing the record, I am satisfied the
objection raised against Ext.P6 is tenable and Ext.P6 isliable to be set aside on the short ground of violative ofprinciples of natural justice.
6.following orders:-
The writ petition is disposed of by the
a)
Ext.P6 is set aside. The matter is remitted
back to the first respondent for consideration anddisposal in accordance with law.
b)
The petitioner is directed to appear before the
first respondent on 19.09.2019 on 11 A.M. withreply/books of accounts as the petitioner is advised inthis behalf.
c)
The first respondent either on 19.09.2019 or
on any other date to which the enquiry standsadjourned and duly intimated to the petitioner disposesof the assessment. The assessment, after remand as
WP(C).No.11476 OF 2019(H) 4
directed by this Court, shall be completed on or before20.10.2019.
Sd/-S.V.BHATTIJUDGE
DCS
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 05/03/2019 INRESPECT OF THE YEAR 2012-13.RESPECT OF THE YEAR 2012-13.
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE IN RESPECT OF THE YEAR 2013-2014 ISSUED UNDER 25(1) KVAT ACT DATED 05/03/2019.YEAR 2013-2014 ISSUED UNDER 25(1) KVAT ACT DATED 05/03/2019.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE IN RESPECT OF THE YEAR 2014-2015 ISSUED UNDER 25(1) KAVT ACT DATED 05/03/2019.YEAR 2014-2015 ISSUED UNDER 25(1) KAVT ACT DATED 05/03/2019.
EXHIBIT P4DETAILS OF COLLECTION MADE BY THE PETITIONER DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13.PETITIONER DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13.
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY PETITIONERTO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 23/03/2019.TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 23/03/2019.
EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 27/03/2019.RESPONDENT DATED 27/03/2019.
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.