K. REGHUNATHAN, PROPRIETOR, K.R. INN Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES COMPLEX, PUTHOLE, THRISSUR AND STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 2018 (7) TMI 1518 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI – Maintainability of petition – alternative remedy of appeal – Held that:- The petitioner, in fact, bona fide pursued his remedy here, and this Court now holds that the petitioner’s remedy lies elsewhere before the appellate authority – Fairness demands, under these circumstances, that the petitioner be given time to approach the appellate forum. In the meanwhile, the respondent should not take steps that may render the p
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ns. Questioning what are said to be patent errors in Ext.P8 order, the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 application for rectification, under section 43 of the Act. 3. First, the petitioner approached this Court, seeking a modified order from the respondent authority, under Section 43 of the Act. Then, after getting Ext.P10 judgment, the petitioner produced it before the first respondent, who issued a revised notice to the petitioner. Again, the petitioner submitted Ext.P11 reply, along with Ext.P11(a) judgment rendered in some other case. The judgment, the petitioner claims, was rendered on identical facts. 4. Yet again, the first respondent passed Ext.P12 reiterating the earlier findings. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ontended that the first respondent, while issuing Ext.P12 order, ignored a binding decision of this Court. Granted, this Court, on an earlier occasion, rendered the judgment, dated 30.01.2018, in WP (C) No.3094 of 2018. I reckon that in Ext.P12, the first respondent, to be fair, did consider that judgment, but held that it did not apply. So we cannot say that the authority ignored a precedent. The decision may still be wrong, but this is not the forum for the petitioner to agitate an issue which an appellate forum could redress. And that forum is available under Section 34 of the Act. 8. As a result, I conclude that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy. So this writ petition must fail. It does. It is dismissed. 9. The petiti
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =