Wp(C)/12119/2010 Of M/S. Edayoor Crusher Metal v. The Agrl. Income Tax And Commercial Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 12119 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S. EDAYOOR CRUSHER METAL, EDAYOOR P.O., VALANCHERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING PARTNER, KHALID PULLAT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.THANU PILLAI SRI.K.P.JOY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE AGRICULTURE INCOME TAX & COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, MANJERI AT KOTTAKKAL. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 12119 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 7[th] April , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner seeks for permission to remit the compounded taxat the rate of Rs. 25000/- per annum for the stone crusher unit, asprovided under the Kerala Finance Bill, 2009. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submitsthat it was only a 'proposal' and hence is not liable to be acted upon.Subsequently, Finance Act, 2009 came into effect, whereby themanner of assessment of tax has been clearly dealt with, specifyingthe parameters . Since the proposal did not materialise the petitionercannot have any vested right based on it particularly in view of the'Act' brought in subsequently, clearly specifying the actual facts andfigures . 3. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court earlier in W.P.(C) 32866 of 2009, after considering the rivalsubmissions, this Court passed the final verdict dated 05.02.2010,whereby similar contentions, as put forth from the part of the petitioners were turned down and the Writ Petition was dismissed.The aggrieved party preferred W.A.No.284 of 2010, which alsohappened to be dismissed as per the verdict passed on 19.02.2010and thus, the issue has become final. This being the position, thepetitioner is not entitled for any benefit based on the said provisions.Interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed. Howeverwith regard to the alternate prayer, to allow the petitioner to pay thetax on 'turnover basis', the petitioner is left at liberty to approach theconcerned authorities for appropriate reliefs, on which event, suchapplication shall be considered and appropriate orders shall bepassed by the concerned authority, as expeditiously as possible. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner might be permitted to clear the outstanding liability by wayof reasonable installments, in view of the difficulties expressed toraise the funds in lump sum. Considering the persuasive submissionmade by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner ispermitted to clear the liability by way of three equal monthlyinstallments, the first of which shall be effected on or before30.04.2010, to be followed by similar installments to be effected on orbefore the 30[th] of the succeeding months. Subject to the above, all recovery proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitionershall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that if any default iscommitted in effecting the installments as above, the respondents willbe at liberty to proceed with further steps for realization of the entireoutstanding liability in a lump sum, from the stage where it standsnow. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk