Abdul Majeed K.K Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1014765
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnJan-18-2013
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
AppellantAbdul Majeed K.K
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice antony dominic friday, the 18th day of january 2013 28th pousha 193 wp(c).no. 1792 of 2013 (y) -------------------------- petitioner(s): ------------------ abdul majeed k.k kummayapurath furniture mart,ulliyeri kozhikode district. by advs.sri.m.shaju purushothaman sri.p.t.sree valsan unni respondent(s): ------------------- 1. state of kerala rep. by the secretary to government department of taxes,thiruvananthapuram-695001.2. the commercial tax officer koyilandy-673571.3. the deputy commissioner (appeals)-ii commercial taxes,kozhikode-673571. by sr. government pleader smt. shoba annamma eapen this writ petition (civil) having come up for admission on 18-01-2013, the court on the same day delivered the following: wp(c).no. 1792 of 2013 (y) appendix petitioner(s) exhibits exhibit p1: true copy of the order passed in appeal by the 1st respondent dt.23.1.12 exhibit p2: true copy of the order passed by the assessing authority d.28.6.2012 exhibit p3: true copy of the medical certificate dt.2.9.2012 exhibit p4: true copy of the demand draft dt.4.10.2012 respondents' exhibits : nil //true copy// p.a. to judge. dlk antony dominic, j.-------------------------------------------------- w.p.(c) no.1792 of 2013(y) -------------------------------------------------- dated this the 18th day of january, 2013 judgment petitioner challenges ext.p2 order of assessment under the kvat act.2. assessment for the year 2009-2010 was completed against the petitioner. against that assessment order petitioner filed an appeal which resulted in ext.p1 order of the appellate authority. in this order the appellate authority remanded the matter to the assessing authority for detailed verification of the documents mentioned therein and for completing assessment afresh. the petitioner failed to participate in the proceedings and therefore the assessing authority completed the assessment as per ext.p2 order.3. petitioner says that his absence in the proceedings was on account of the treatment for his illness. ext.p3 is a medical certificate relied on by the petitioner to substantiate the aforesaid contention. on this basis petitioner seeks to quash wpc.no. 1792/2013 :2 : ext.p2 and to direct the 2nd respondent to complete the proceedings afresh.4. having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through exts.p2 and p3, i am not satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to such a relief. first of all in the proceedings which culminated in ext.p2 if the petitioner was unwell nothing prevented the petitioner from deputing an authorised representative to represent him. that apart a reading of ext.p3 certificate produced by the petitioner also does not conclusively prove that the petitioner was physically disabled from participating in the proceedings. in such circumstances, i am not persuaded to hold that the petition is entitled for the relief sought for. writ petition is disposed of. (antony dominic) judge vi/
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013 28TH POUSHA 193 WP(C).No. 1792 of 2013 (Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ ABDUL MAJEED K.K KUMMAYAPURATH FURNITURE MART,ULLIYERI KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.P.T.SREE VALSAN UNNI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF TAXES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER KOYILANDY-673571.

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)-II COMMERCIAL TAXES,KOZHIKODE-673571. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 1792 of 2013 (Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN APPEAL BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT.23.1.12 EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY D.28.6.2012 EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DT.2.9.2012 EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DT.4.10.2012 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. dlk ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

-------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.1792 OF 2013(Y) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of January, 2013 JUDGMENT

Petitioner challenges Ext.P2 order of assessment under the KVAT Act.

2. Assessment for the year 2009-2010 was completed against the petitioner. Against that assessment order petitioner filed an appeal which resulted in Ext.P1 order of the appellate authority. In this order the appellate authority remanded the matter to the assessing authority for detailed verification of the documents mentioned therein and for completing assessment afresh. The petitioner failed to participate in the proceedings and therefore the assessing authority completed the assessment as per Ext.P2 order.

3. Petitioner says that his absence in the proceedings was on account of the treatment for his illness. Ext.P3 is a medical certificate relied on by the petitioner to substantiate the aforesaid contention. On this basis petitioner seeks to quash WPC.No. 1792/2013 :2 : Ext.P2 and to direct the 2nd respondent to complete the proceedings afresh.

4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through Exts.P2 and P3, I am not satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to such a relief. First of all in the proceedings which culminated in Ext.P2 if the petitioner was unwell nothing prevented the petitioner from deputing an authorised representative to represent him. That apart a reading of Ext.P3 certificate produced by the petitioner also does not conclusively prove that the petitioner was physically disabled from participating in the proceedings. In such circumstances, I am not persuaded to hold that the petition is entitled for the relief sought for. Writ petition is disposed of. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/