Praveen Kumar Vs. State of Kerala

Praveen Kumar vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 10, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1165929

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1165929
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice a.M.Shaffique
Decided On: Oct 10, 2014
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Praveen Kumar

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....dated this the 10th day of october 2014 judgment the petitioner challenges ext.p3, a conditional order passed by the deputy commissioner (appeals)-ii, ernakulam in two separate appeals filed by the petitioner with respect to assessment orders in relation to works contract for 2010-'11 and 2011-'12. the petitioner is imposed with a tax liability of `25,73,478/- with respect to assessment year 2010-'11 and `25,98,330/- with respect to assessment year 2011-'12 as evident from exts.p1a and p1b.2. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the direction to pay 30% of the outstanding demand as a condition for stay and to furnish adequate security for the balance amount is absolutely illegal and unjustifiable. w.p.(c). no.26304 of 2014 -:2. :- though contentions have been urged on behalf of the petitioner on the merits of the case. i am not inclined to go into the merits of such contentions at this stage. the appellate court has considered the merits and demerits of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and has directed payment of 30% of the outstanding demand. learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the tax had been imposed at 12.5% though the petitioner is a works contractor who had exercised the option of compounding and liable to pay tax only at the rate of 3%.3. heard the learned government pleader, who opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the order passed by the appellate authority.4. however, having regard to the respective contentions raised by both parties, i am of the view that w.p.(c). no.26304 of 2014 -:3. :- little more leniency can be shown to the petitioner to comply with ext.p3 order. hence, the petitioner is permitted to pay `8,00,000/- (rupees eight lakhs only) in respect of the entire tax demanded with respect to assessment year 2010-'11 and 2011-'12 in lieu of 30% as directed in ext.p3. if the said amount is paid within a period of three weeks from today and.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE10H DAY OF OCTOBER201418TH ASWINA, 1936 WP(C).No.26304 of 2014 (K) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- MR.PRAVEEN KUMAR,PROPRIETOR, M/S.POOJA CONSTRUCTIONS,JOHN'S BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR,BANERJI ROAD,ERNAKULAM-682018. BY ADV. SMT.K.LATHA RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARYTO THE GOVT. OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (WORKS CONTRACT), O/O.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682019.

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)-II, COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM-682018.

4. INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030. BY SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER SMT.SHOBHA ANNAMMA EAPEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1010-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: pk WP(C) NO.26304/2014 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: EXT.P1A:THE TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER

FOR THE YEAR2010 2011 DATED306.2014. EXT.P1B:THE TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER

FOR THE YEAR2011 2012 DATED306.2014. EXT.P2A:THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL IN FORM29AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST THE P1A ASSESSMENT ORDER

FOR THE YEAR20102011. EXT.P2B:THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL ION FORM29AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BYH THE PETITIONER AGAINST THE P1B ASSESSMENT ORDER

FOR THE YEAR20112012. EXT.P3:THE TRUE COPY OF THE STAY NO.KVATA25872014 AND25882014 DATED259.2014 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4A:THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM NO.12 FOR THE YEAR20102011 DATED118.2014 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4B:THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM NO.12 FOR THE YEAR20112012 DATED118.2014 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE pk A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.26304 of 2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 10th day of October 2014

JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges Ext.P3, a conditional order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Ernakulam in two separate appeals filed by the petitioner with respect to assessment orders in relation to works contract for 2010-'11 and 2011-'12. The petitioner is imposed with a tax liability of `25,73,478/- with respect to assessment year 2010-'11 and `25,98,330/- with respect to assessment year 2011-'12 as evident from Exts.P1A and P1B.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the direction to pay 30% of the outstanding demand as a condition for stay and to furnish adequate security for the balance amount is absolutely illegal and unjustifiable. W.P.(C). No.26304 of 2014 -:

2. :- Though contentions have been urged on behalf of the petitioner on the merits of the case. I am not inclined to go into the merits of such contentions at this stage. The appellate court has considered the merits and demerits of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and has directed payment of 30% of the outstanding demand. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the tax had been imposed at 12.5% though the petitioner is a works contractor who had exercised the option of compounding and liable to pay tax only at the rate of 3%.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader, who opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the order passed by the appellate authority.

4. However, having regard to the respective contentions raised by both parties, I am of the view that W.P.(C). No.26304 of 2014 -:

3. :- little more leniency can be shown to the petitioner to comply with Ext.P3 order. Hence, the petitioner is permitted to pay `8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) in respect of the entire tax demanded with respect to assessment year 2010-'11 and 2011-'12 in lieu of 30% as directed in Ext.P3. If the said amount is paid within a period of three weeks from today and security is furnished, the petitioner will be entitled for the stay as directed in Ext.P3. This Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE. Jvt

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2014 Same Parties Praveen Kumar vs State of Kerala Same Subject Education Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice a.M.Shaffique