Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

S. HARIMURALI, S/O.SREEDHARA PANICKER versus THE STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


S. HARIMURALI, S/O.SREEDHARA PANICKER v. THE STATE OF KERALA - WA No. 1741 of 2005 [2007] RD-KL 17360 (14 September 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 1741 of 2005()

1. S. HARIMURALI, S/O.SREEDHARA PANICKER,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. THE SALES TAX OFFICER,

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

4. THE TAHSILDAR (R.R),

5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

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

Dated :14/09/2007

O R D E R

H.L.Dattu,C.J. & K.T.Sankaran,J.

W.A.No.1741 of 2005-E

Dated, this the 14th day of September, 2007



JUDGMENT

H.L.Dattu,C.J. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.7842 of 2005 dated 11th March, 2005. The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition solely on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court nearly after ten years from the date of impugned orders. (2) The facts in brief are, that the petitioner is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ("Act" for short). Orders of assessments were passed against the petitioner in the year 1996 for the assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 under Sections 17(3) and 17(4) of the Act respectively. It is not the case of the petitioner that those assessment orders were not served on him. (3) Petitioner, for the first time, has questioned the aforesaid assessment orders in a petition filed in the year 2005. Nowhere in the petition the petitioner has explained the reasons for approaching the Court nearly after ten years from the date of passing and service of the impugned orders. (4) The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration that the discretionary and extra ordinary reliefs cannot be granted to a person who has slept over his rights, in our opinion, has rightly rejected the writ petition. The reasoning and conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge are in consonance with the law declared by the apex Court in several cases. In that W.A.No.1741of 2005-E - 2 - view of the matter, we do not find any ground to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice K.T.Sankaran Judge vku/-


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.