Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE MALABAR PRODUCE EXPORT CO. versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


THE MALABAR PRODUCE EXPORT CO. v. STATE OF KERALA - OP No. 3801 of 2003(C) [2007] RD-KL 8517 (24 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 3801 of 2003(C)

1. THE MALABAR PRODUCE EXPORT CO.,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER (ASSMET) V,

4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,

5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

For Petitioner :SRI.PHILIP ANTONY CHACKO

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN

Dated :24/05/2007

O R D E R

P.R.RAMAN, J

O.P.NO.3801 OF 2003

Dated this the 24th day of May, 2007



JUDGMENT

M/s.Malabar Produce Export Co., Kozhikode is the petitioner herein. It is an assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act. It is aggrieved by Exts.P7 and P8 notices issued under the Revenue Recovery Act demanding an amount of Rs.8097/- towards the arrears of tax due for the year 1968-69. The disputes relating to the other assessment orders are the subject matter of appeals before the Appellate Tribunal as T.A.Nos. 176/77 and 177/77 which were challenged before this Court in T.R.C.Nos.228 & 229/1986. This Court by its judgment dated 25/8/1987 allowed the revisions filed by the State and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Assessing Authority. It is also directed that an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner herein. But according to the petitioner, pursuant to the order of remand passed by this Court in the above-said revision cases no fresh notice was issued, no opportunity of hearing was afforded and the revised assessment order, if any, passed was not served on him. Therefore, the petitioner impugns the demand as illegal, as no amount is said to be legally due, unless an assessment order is served on him. There is no averment in O.P..NO.3801/2001 the counter affidavit that the petitioner was heard in the matter before passing any revised order of assessment. It is also not shown before me that the revised order of assessment pursuant to the remand order was served on the petitioner by producing the files. In such circumstances, I am constrained to accept the contention of the petitioner that he has not been served with the order of revised assessment, pursuant to the remand order passed by this Court.

2. In the above circumstances, the demands as per Exts.P7 and P8 are liable to be quashed and I do so. It is open to the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) (3rd respondent) to serve a copy of the revised order of assessment along with fresh demand to the petitioner and on failure to comply with the same, to proceed to recover the amount by fresh proceedings. It will be open to the petitioner to work out his remedies against the revised order of assessment by filing an appeal or revision, as the case may be, and also obtain interim orders as entitled to by him. Original Petition is allowed as above. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. kcv. O.P..NO.3801/2001

P.R.RAMAN, J.

O.P.NO.3801 OF 2003

JUDGMENT

24th May, 2007


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.