Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4340
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. NAGARESH, J
MRF LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/11000/2021
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN, SRI.KURYAN THOMAS, SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM, SRI.RAJA KANNAN, SMT.S.PARVATHI
The judgment clarifies the obligation to suspend recovery actions pending rectification petitions under the CST (Kerala) Rules, 1957.
Headnote:
Rectification - Writ Petitions - CST (Kerala) Rules, 1957 - Rule 6(9) - The court directed the authorities to consider the rectification petitions that were pending and kept recovery proceedings in abeyance, highlighting procedural adherence to prior judgments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged recovery proceedings arising from assessment orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, arguing that the demands violated a binding judgment and failed to consider relevant documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the assessment orders did not account for prior judgments and the pending rectification petitions, necessitating a stay on recovery proceedings until these petitions were addressed.
Issues: Whether the Deputy Commissioner should proceed with recovery actions despite pending rectification petitions and a binding prior judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that recovery actions should be suspended pending the consideration of rectification petitions filed under applicable rules, ensuring compliance with legal precedents.
Final Decision: The court ordered the stay of recovery proceedings until the rectification petitions were resolved.
J U D G M E N T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dated this the 4th day of May, 2021 These three writ petitions are filed by the petitioner-
Company challenging the impending recovery proceedings by the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner of State Tax pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order, in spite of the pendency of rectification petitions.
2. By Ext.P1 order in these writ petitions, assessment orders were issued by the 2nd respondent raising demands contrary to the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P3 judgment, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner. such demands were raised without noticing the documents produced by the petitioner which formed part of the assessment records of the 2nd respondent-Assessing Authority.
3. The petitioner therefore filed Ext.P2 petitions for rectification invoking Rule 6(9) of the CST (Kerala) Rules, 1957 in order to get the mistakes crept in Ext.P1 orders rectified.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the mistakes have occurred on account of non-consideration of a binding judgment of this Court and documents on record.
4. In Ext.P2 rectification petitions, the petitioner has requested to keep in abeyance the recovery pursuant to Ext.P1 order pending consideration of the rectification petitions. However, the petitioner learnt that the 2nd respondent would be proceeding with the recovery in spite of the pendency of the rectification petitions. Hence, the petitioner seeks to direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P2 rectification petitions after hearing the petitioner and to keep the recovery proceedings in abeyance till orders are passed on Ext.P2.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 2.
6. As per Ext.P1 assessment order in W.P.(C)
No.10920/2021 for the year 2013-'14, the respondents have assessed the tax due at ₹17,30,78,710/-. As per Ext.P1 assessment order in W.P.(C) No.10932/2021 for the year
2014-'15, the tax due is assessed at ₹91,53,41,560/-. By Ext.P1 assessment order in W.P.(C) No.11000/2021 for the year 2012-'13, the tax due is assessed at ₹19,35,37,362/-. the petitioner contends that the assessment orders have been issued without adverting to Ext.P3 Division Bench judgment of this Court in OT(Appeal) No.3/2010. If the said Ext.P3 judgment covers the issue, then indeed recovery proceedings against the petitioner will be harsh and unjust.
In the circumstances of the case, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to consider Ext.P2 rectification petitions filed by the petitioner under Rule 6(9) of the CST (Kerala) Rules, 1957 within a period of one month. Till orders are passed on Ext.P2 rectification petitions, recovery proceedings if any, against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment orders, shall be kept in abeyance.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/04.05.2021 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10920/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.3.2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 UNDER THE CST ACT.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION PETITION DATED 21.4.2021 ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 23.4.2021, AND ITS ENCLOSURES.
EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.9.2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.T.APPEAL NO.3/2010.
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10932/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25.03.2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 UNDER THE CST ACT.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION PETITION DATED 27.04.2021 AND ITS ENCLOSURES.
EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
03.09.2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.T. APPEAL NO. 3/2010 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11000/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23.03.2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 UNDER THE KVAT ACT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION PETITION DATED 22.04.2021 AND THE COVERING LETTER DATED 23.04.2021,
