Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DILEEP KUMAR K.S., S/O SUKUMARAN versus STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


DILEEP KUMAR K.S., S/O SUKUMARAN v. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 16998 of 2007(W) [2007] RD-KL 11085 (25 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 16998 of 2007(W)

1. DILEEP KUMAR K.S., S/O SUKUMARAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. SALES TAX OFFICER,

3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(R.R.),

5. VILLAGE OFFICER,

For Petitioner :SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

Dated :25/06/2007

O R D E R

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

WP(C) No. 16998 of 2007

Dated, this the 25th day of June, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of tax due for the year 2000 to 2004. According to the petitioner, prior to issue of RR notice, petitioner was not served with any assessment orders under the KGST Act. However, under interim orders, the Officer issued copies of the orders to petitioner, which is produced in Court today. Counsel referred to the orders so produced and contended that it is passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as required under Sec. 17(3) of the KGST Act. Arbitrary additions are seen made because petitioner has not produced books of accounts. According to the petitioner, business is closed in June 2001 and the matter was intimated to the Officer. It is stated in the assessment order itself that notice sent was returned unserved. Officer obviously did not verify records or traced the party. Moreover, tax is demanded on estimated turn over which is apparently not tenable under the Act. In the circumstances, I vacate the assessment orders dated WP(C) No. 16998/2007 30/11/2004 issued for the years 2000 to 2004 with a direction to the petitioner to produce books of accounts before the assessing officer after taking a date from him within three weeks from now and assessing officer is directed to verify the same and issue fresh pre-assessment notice and complete assessment after hearing the petitioner. If petitioner co-operates and produces the books of accounts, the assessment should be completed as above and after completion of assessment, the officer will recall earlier order of recovery proceedings. If petitioner has any grievance against fresh assessment issued as above, petitioner can challenge the same in appeal before the statutory authority. There will be a direction to respondents 3 to 5 to withhold recovery proceedings for two months from now for the officer to complete assessment afresh as above.

2. Petitioner will produce copy of this judgment for compliance. However, if petitioner does not produce books of accounts and appear before the assessing officer, the assessing officer will record the same and intimate the recovery authority to proceed in accordance with the original order.

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

jg


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.