ASHOK BHUSHAN, A.M.SHAFFIQUE
VALSAMMA – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM – Respondent
Shaffique, J
All these cases concern steps taken by the Revenue Authorities for recovery of sales tax due from one E.V.Thomas. The writ petitioners were proceeded against mainly on the ground that they have acquired properties which belonged to Sri.E.V.Thomas, his wife and children and therefore became liable to the extent of properties acquired by them. The said action of the revenue authorities came to be challenged in separate writ petitions.
2. The writ petitioners are the appellants in W.A.No.1835/2008. They challenge the judgment in W.P.C.No.26177 of 2008 by which the learned Single Judge as per judgment dated 01/09/2008 relegated the writ petitioners to prefer a revision before the Government under Section 83 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the RR Act').
3. W.P.C.No.16382/2009 is also filed by the appellants in W.A.No.1835/2008, seeking for a direction to consider Ext.P3 representation before taking any further proceedings to recover any amount from them.
4. Contempt Case No.661/2011 has been filed by the appellants in W.A.No.1835/2008 alleging wilful disobedience of the interim order passed by the Division Bench staying further proceed
Associated Cement Company Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [(1981) 48 STC 466]
J.K.Synthetics Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer [(1994) 94 STC 422]
Maruti Wire Industries (P) Ltd. v. STO [2001(3) SCC 735]
M/s.Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. P.B.Sunil Kumar and Others [2010(3) KHC 93]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.