Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K. SODARAN, S/O. KANNAN versus THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K. SODARAN, S/O. KANNAN v. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED - WA No. 638 of 2006 [2007] RD-KL 9867 (8 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 638 of 2006()

1. K. SODARAN, S/O. KANNAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
... Respondent

2. THE SALE TAX OFFICER, PUNALUR, KOLLAM.

3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

For Petitioner :SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS

For Respondent : No Appearance

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

Dated :08/06/2007

O R D E R

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

W.A. No. 638 of 2006

Dated this the 8th June, 2007



JUDGMENT

H.L.DATTU, C.J. Appellant calls in question the correctness of the orders passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No.6662 of 2006 dated 7th March, 2006. While disposing of the writ petition, the learned single Judge has merely followed the judgment in W.P.(C) No.6069 of 2006 dated 1st March, 2006.

2. Appellant before us is a contractor. The respondents had issued a demand notice inter alia directing the appellant to pay entry tax for the two JCBs brought by him into the local area. After receipt of the demand notice, the appellant had requested the respondents to adjust the amount refundable to him towards the demand made in the demand notice. Since that request has not been considered by the respondents, appellant was before this Court in W.P.(C) No.6662 of 2006. Learned Judge had rejected the writ petition following the judgment in W.P.(C) No.6069 of 2006.

3. Payment of tax and claim for refund are two different concepts. The demand notices are issued after the completion of the assessment proceedings. The assessee is expected to pay the demands made by the respondents till such demands are set aside by a superior forum.

4. Refund of tax paid is yet another concept. If an assessee is of the opinion that the respondent - State has to refund the amounts paid by him, he has to .W.A. NO.638 OF 2006 approach them with appropriate representation/application and if, for any reason, the request so made is rejected, he has to approach the appropriate forum for refund of the amount. The Act does not contemplate adjustment of the tax paid. In that view of the matter, in our opinion, the learned Judge was fully justified in rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellant. We do not see any ground to interfere with the orders so 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 ahz/DK.


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.