Skip to content


Kristal Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Works Contract) - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Kerala High Court

Decided On

Judge

Appellant

Kristal Infrastructure Ltd.

Respondent

Assistant Commissioner (Works Contract)

Excerpt:


.....act, which is not the position in respect of the assessment year 2006-07, which forms the subject matter of ext.p6.5. after hearing both the sides and also considering the extent of of liability involved, this court finds it fit and proper to have it scaled down from 30% to 20% so as to enable the petitioner to avail the benefit of interim stay. since the time has already run out, the petitioner is granted two weeks' time more, from today, to satisfy the condition modified as above. subject to satisfaction of the condition, the petitioner shall continue to w.p.(c)no. 8485 of20143 enjoy the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of appeal. the petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent/deputy commissioner for further steps. p.r.ramachandra menon judge lk

Judgment:


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY,THE31T DAY OF MARCH201410TH CHAITHRA, 1936 WP(C).No. 8485 of 2014 (I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- KRISTAL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 33/1842, N.H.BYE PAS, VENNALA P.O. KOCHI-682 028, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, SRI. GOVINDAN NAMBOODIRI. BY ADVS.SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.K.UMAMAHESWAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (WORKS CONTRACT), COMMERCIAL TAXES, CLAS TOWER, 2ND FLOOR, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOCHI-682 018.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 015.

3. INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682 030. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON3103-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PJ WP(C).No. 8485 of 2014 (I) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER

DATED2411.2013 FOR THE YEAR20072008 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM AGAINST EXT.P1. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF PETITION FOR STAY FILED IN EXT.P2 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF PETITION FOR EARLYHEARING FILED IN EXT.P2 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF STAY ORDER

DATED103.2014 ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF ORDER

DATED49.2013 ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR20062007. EXHIBTI P7: COPY OF NOTICES DATED73.2014 ISSUED BY THE3D RESPONDENT UNDER THE RR ACT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

.............................................................................. W.P.(C)No. 8485 OF2014......................................................................... Dated this the 31st March, 2014

JUDGMENT

Being aggrieved of Ext.P1 assessment order passed by the first respondent/ Assistant Commissioner (Works Contract), the petitioner approached the appellate authority by filing Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 petition for stay. After considering the application for Stay, the appellate authority/Deputy Commissioner passed Ext.P5 order dated 10.03.2014, directing the petitioner to satisfy 30% of the disputed liability/outstanding demand and to furnish adequate security for the remaining balance so as to avail the benefit of the interim stay during the pendency of the appeal.

2. The case or the petitioner is that the course pursued by the assessing authority as per Ext.P1 order has resulted in duplication of amount involved, which is not correct or sustainable in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in M/s. Gannon Dunkerly & Co. & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Others [(1993)88 STC204(SC)].

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on Ext.P6 order passed by the second W.P.(C)No. 8485 OF20142 respondent/Deputy Commissioner himself for the assessment year 2006-07 where the contention of the petitioner was accepted, whereby the impugned order was modified. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has taken up the matter further by way of second appeal and the matter is pending consideration.

4. The learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner cannot draw analogy between two different assessment orders; in so far as with regard to Ext.P1 assessment, the offence was admitted by the petitioner and the same was sought to be compounded under Section 74 of the KVAT Act, which is not the position in respect of the assessment year 2006-07, which forms the subject matter of Ext.P6.

5. After hearing both the sides and also considering the extent of of liability involved, this Court finds it fit and proper to have it scaled down from 30% to 20% so as to enable the petitioner to avail the benefit of interim stay. Since the time has already run out, the petitioner is granted two weeks' time more, from today, to satisfy the condition modified as above. Subject to satisfaction of the condition, the petitioner shall continue to W.P.(C)No. 8485 OF20143 enjoy the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of appeal. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent/Deputy Commissioner for further steps. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //