Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.P.JOY, S/O.K.P.POULO versus V.S.SENTHIL, AGED AND NAME OF THE FATHER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.P.JOY, S/O.K.P.POULO v. V.S.SENTHIL, AGED AND NAME OF THE FATHER - RP No. 419 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 13360 (18 July 2007)

disposal of the goods in the State of Kerala?

b) Whether the Appellate Tribunal did not commit an error of law in holding that the assessment has been completed under Sec.17 of the Act when the entire assessment is based on the allegation that the Transit Passes issued from the Check Post at the point of entry were not surrendered at the Azhiyur Chungam Check Post?

c) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the goods have been disposed of in the State of Kerala by the Appellants on the ground that the records at the Azhiyur Chungam Check Post did not show that the goods have gone out of the State for the sole reason that the Petitioners did not prove the mode of transport, notwithstanding the plea of the Petitioners that the goods were delivered at their business place by the Sellers? S.T.REV. NO.95 OF 2003

d) Whether the Appellate Tribunal did not commit an error in law in holding that the issue of C Forms did not conclusively prove that the goods were received in Mahe, especially in view of the fact that the Petitioners have disposed of the goods in Mahe and paid tax due thereon under the Local Act?

e) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was not unduly influenced by observations of the First Respondent that the total quantity of RKG Ghee purchased by dealers in Mahe was disproportionate to the needs of the people in Mahe, especially in view of the identical statistics available with respect to petrol, liquor and other goods?

f) Whether the Appellate Tribunal did not commit an error of law in not considering the logic behind the introduction of Sec.30B(3) of the Act which was brought in only to cover situations of the one involved in the matter?"

2. Learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis would submit that the questions of law raised by the assessee are no more res integra in view of the orders passed by this Court in S.T.Rev.No.77 of 2003, dated 26th September, 2006 (Messers Renuka Agencies, Mahe v. Intelligence Officer).

3. In view of the above, the questions of law raised by the assessee are answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) Chief Justice (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/ H.L.DATTU, C.J. &

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

S.T.REV.NO. 95 OF 2003

O R D E R

18th July, 2007

? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP No. 419 of 2007()

1. K.P.JOY, S/O.K.P.POULO,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. V.S.SENTHIL, AGED AND NAME OF THE FATHER
... Respondent

2. BABU JACOB, NAME OF THE FATHER AND AGE

3. ROY VELLANIKKARA, S/O.JOHN VELLANIKKARAN

4. ABDULLAKUTTY, AGE AND NAME OF THE FATHER

For Petitioner :SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

Dated :18/07/2007

O R D E R

H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN,J.

Review Petition No.419 of 2007 in Cont. Case (C) No. 885 of 2004 and C.M.Appl. NO. 182 of 2007

Dated this the 18th July, 2007

O R D E R

H.L.DATTU, C.J. This Review Petition is filed for reviewing the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Contempt Case (C) No.885 of 2004, dated 17th September, 2004.

2. In filing the Review Petition, there is a delay of 893 days. To condone the delay, an application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

3. We have carefully perused the explanation offered by the petitioner for condonation of delay. The explanation offered, in our view, is wholly unsatisfactory. Therefore, the delay in filing the Review Petition cannot be condoned by us. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition is rejected.

4. Consequent to the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition, the Review Petition also stands rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) Chief Justice (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/


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.