Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J
JYOTHY LABORATORIES LIMITED, THRISSUR – Appellant
Versus
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT) – Respondent
WP(C)/38351/2010
Tax - Appeal - Act Section List - The court mandated the consideration of an appeal regarding tax recovery, ensuring similar treatment as in other cases, and established conditions for the stay of tax collection pending decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an assessment and recovery steps initiated without considering their appeal, seeking a stay on recovery until the appeal was resolved.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the responsible authority to expedite the appeal process and temporarily stayed recovery actions, contingent upon partial payment and security for the disputed amount.
Issues: Whether recovery steps can be stayed pending the resolution of an appeal related to tax rate disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: The need for a balanced approach in tax recovery, allowing an opportunity for the appeal to be heard and decided while ensuring the state’s revenue interests are protected.
Final Decision: Recovery actions were stayed pending the appellant's partial payment and security provision.
J U D G M E N T
----------------------
Aggrieved by assessment for the month of September 2010, completed against the petitioner as per Ext.P1 order, the petitioner had filed statutory appeal before the 3rd respondent, as per Ext.P2. Stay petition as per Ext.P3 was also filed along with the appeal. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent has not yet considered either the appeal or the stay application. Grievance of the petitioner is that recovery steps are now being proceeded against for realising the amount in dispute, on issuing revenue recovery notice as per Ext.P4, without considering pendency of the appeal. Hence the petitioner seeks direction to keep in abeyance the recovery steps till the disposal of the appeal.
2. It is submitted that the only dispute in the W.P.(C).38351/10-T -2-
appeal pertains to rate of tax applicable for the products, “Ujala Supreme” and “Ujala Stiff & Shine” dealt with by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the question is now pending decision in various other cases filed by the manufacturer as well as other dealers, awaiting decision on the issue from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and from this court. It is pointed out that this court had granted stay in many other cases, against recovery of the tax amounts in dispute, pending disposal of such appeals, on condition of payment of 1/3rd of the amounts. Hence I am of the opinion that a similar relief can be granted in this case also.
3. In the result the 3rd respondent is directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 appeal, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
4. Realisation of amounts covered under Ext.P1 order, which is now sought to be recovered through Ext.P4 notice, shall be kept in abeyance, on condition of the W.P.(C).38351/10-T -3-
petitioner remitting 1/3rd of the tax amount in dispute and also on furnishing security for the balance amount, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
5. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
