Wp(C)/34008/2009 Of M/S.arackal Charitable Society v. The Agricultural Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34008 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S ARACKAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY, REG.NO.A 238/04, ERAMALLOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY N.M.ASHARAF. BY ADVS. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR SRI.V.DEVANANDA NARASIMHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KUTHIYATHODU. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -W.P.(C)No. 34008 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2[nd] day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1.Against Ext.P7 order imposing penalty underSection 67 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVATAct) the petitioner had filed Ext.P8 appeal and Ext.P9application for stay, before the statutory appellateauthority, the 2[nd] respondent. The appeal was filed alongwith a petition seeking condonation of delay as evidencedby Ext.P10. It is submitted that the appeal as well as theaccompanying applications are pending consideration anddisposal before the 2[nd] respondent. Grievance of thepetitioner is that steps have now been initiated pursuant toExt.P11 notice for realisation of the amount of penaltywithout taking note of pendency of the appeal. 2.According to the petitioner the penalty wasimposed alleging failure to file monthly return. It is thecase of the petitioner that he had intimated about W.P.(C)No. 34008 of 2009 suspension of business activity, inspite of the fact that he filed application for renewal of registration for thesubsequent years, under expectation that the businesscould be revived. He had also filed annual return showingnil turnover. Under the above circumstances contention ofthe petitioner is that imposition of penalty is totallyunwarranted. However, since the matter is pendingconsideration before the appellate authority, I am notentering into any findings regarding merits of thecontentions. I am of the opinion that the writ petition canbe disposed of on issuing necessary directions to theappellate authority. 3.In the result, the 2[nd] respondent is directed toconsider and dispose of Ext.P10 application filed seekingcondonation of delay, after affording an opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any ratewithin a period of one month from the date of receipt of acopy of this judgment. If the delay is condoned, the 2[nd]respondent shall proceed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 appeal itself, at the earliest possible, atany rate within one month thereafter. 3.Respondents are directed to keep in abeyance further steps for recovery initiated pursuant to Ext.P11notice, till orders are issued by the 2[nd] respondent either onthe delay condonation application as directed above in casethe appeal is admitted, then till the disposal of the appeal. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/