SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 14034

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
THE THALAYOLAPARAMBU FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. – Appellant
Versus
THE ASSISTANAT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, KOTTAYAM DIVISION – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 14045 OF 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: DR.K.P.PRADEEP, SRI.HAREESH M.R., SRI.SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN, SRI.T.T.BIJU, SMT.T.THASMI, SMT.M.J.ANOOPA, SMT.SANU S. MALAKEEL
For the Respondents: SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, SMT.P.V.PARVATHY, SMT.REENA THOMAS, SMT.NIGI GEORGE, SRI.SREELAL N. WARRIER, SC.

A writ petition cannot be entertained when the appeal period under relevant tax laws has expired.

Headnote:The petitioner, a Co-operative Society, contesting Ext.P1 assessment order dated 29.07.2016 under Finance Act, 1994, alleges an exorbitant penalty demand for 01.04.2010 to 30.06.2012. The court finds that the petition, filed on 13.04.2023, could not be entertained as the appeal period under Finance Act had lapsed, citing Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise v. Krishna Poduval [2005 KHC 1914]. The writ petition is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. writ petition challenges penalty assessment order. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments on excessive penalty demand. (Para 3)
3. court's opinion on the maintainability of the petition. (Para 4)

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, a Co-operative Society, has filed the captioned writ petition, seeking to challenge Ext.P1 assessment order dated 29.07.2016 issued under the provisions of Finance Act , 1994, seeking to demand penalty payable thereunder for the period from 01.04.2010 to 30.06.2012.

2. Heard Dr.K.P.Pradeep, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sreelal N.Warrier, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, as well as Sri.Mohan Jacob George, the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent.

3. Dr.Pradeep, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would emphatically contend that the demand of penalty by Ext.P1 is exorbitant and without noticing the fact that the maximum penalty that could be imposed, if any, can be only Rs.10,000/-.

4. Though I find much force in the contention raised by Dr.Pradeep, this Court is of the opinion that since Ext.P1 is admittedly dated 29.07.2016, a writ petition presented on 13.04.2023 could not be entertained. This Court also notices the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise v. Krishna Poduval [2005 KHC 1914] , wherein it has been categorically found that once the period for filing an appeal under the Finance Act , 1994 is over, a writ petition could not be entertained.

In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to succeed, and the captioned writ petition would stand dismissed.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top