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
VAT and Sales Tax
2018 (7) TMI 1518 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 27-6-2018
W.P (C) No.17900 of 2018
CST, VAT & Sales Tax
MR DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
For The Petitioner : Sri. Tomson T. Emmanuel
For The Respondent : Sri. V. K. Shamsudheen, Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, running a bar attached to a hotel, is a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act.
2. Despite the petitioner's fil
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
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. He wants the Court to quash the first respondent's Ext.P12 order, issued for 2013-14.
5. The petitioner's counsel has submitted that the first respondent has ignored the binding judgment from this Court and rendered the Ext.P12 in a mechanical manner. He has also brought to my notice the judgment, dt.11.04.2018, in WP(C) No. 1286 of 2018, to contend that this Court, earlier, under similar circumstances, directed the authority to reconsider the issue.
6. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner h
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
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 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 petitioner's statutory remedy illusory.
So I hold that respondent should defer coercive steps for six weeks from today, and the petitioner, in the meanwhile, approach the appell
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =