Wp(C)/27617/2020 Of Kizhakkedathu Enterprises v. Agricultural Income Tax And State Tax Officer
High Court
11 Dec 2020 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/27617/2020 Of Kizhakkedathu Enterprises v. Agricultural Income Tax And State Tax Officer
Date of order
11 Dec 2020
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp(C)/27617/2020 Of Kizhakkedathu Enterprises v. Agricultural Income Tax And State Tax Officer, the High Court (2020) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942
WP(C).No.27617 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:
KIZHAKKEDATHU ENTERPRISESXIV/923, PAZHAVANGADI (PO), RANNI-689673, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.JOMON PHILIP.
BY ADVS.SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUELSRI.BEJOY CHERIYAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND STATE TAX OFFICERSGST DEPARTMENT, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA-689672.SGST DEPARTMENT, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA-689672.
2STATE OF KERALA,STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT.
OTHER PRESENT:
GP PRIYA SHANAVAS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON11.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
JUDGMENT
The challenge in this writ petition against Ext.P3 notice issued under theKVAT Act. Although various contentions are raised in the writ petition in itschallenge against Ext.P3 notice, I am of the view that the petitioner has aneffective alternative remedy by way of preferring an objection against the noticeand getting the matter adjudicated before the adjudicating authority. The writpetition impugning the notice at this stage cannot be entertained in the absenceof any jurisdictional error or violation of rules of natural justice. Accordingly Idismiss the writ petition in its challenge against Ext.P3 notice without prejudiceto the right of the petitioner to move the adjudicating authority after preferringan objection against Ext.P3 notice.
I make it clear however, that the adjudicating authority while consideringthe objections to Ext.P3 notice shall take note of the directions issued by thisCourt in Ext.P4 judgment which is on a similar issue. The order to be passed bythe adjudicating authority shall reflect a consideration of the directions in thesaid judgment, as also the contentions raised by the petitioner on merits. Theadjudicating authority shall also give a week’s notice to the petitioner for thepurposes of preparing himself for the personal hearing in connection with theadjudication aforementioned. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writpetition together with a copy of this judgment, before the respondent, for furtheraction.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
3
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
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.