High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 07 KL CK 0074

Baby Antony vs The Commercial Tax Officer, Department of Commercial Taxes and The Deputy Tahasildar (RR)

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 24 July 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) . No. 16514 of 2012 (L)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 374 words

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—The petitioner is running a Bar Hotel and is an assessee both under the KGST as well as KVAT Acts. Grievance of the petitioner is mainly with regard to Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P3(a) demand notices, to the extent they demand ''collection charges'', which according to the petitioner is not liable to be paid in view of the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court in Malabar Organics Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala, . The petitioner also seeks for permission to clear the actual liability by way of reasonable installments. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who brings to the notice of this Court that the State, being aggrieved of the above decision, has already approached the Supreme Court, where the matter is still pending, also granting interim stay. This being the position, the issue as to right to demand ''collection charges'' has not become final.

2.

After hearing the both sides and also considering limited nature of the relief now pressed before this Court, it is found fit and proper to permit the petitioner to clear the liability by way of ''10'' equal monthly installments; the first of which shall be effected on or before the 10th of August 2012, to be followed by similar installments, to be effected on or before the 10th of the succeeding months. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. It is made clear that, if any default is committed by the petitioner, it will be open for the respondents to proceed with further steps for realisation of the amount in lump, from the stage where it stands now. The issue with regard to the liability to satisfy the ''collection charges'' is left open and it will depend upon the outcome of the matter pending before the Supreme Court. Payments as mentioned above, without collection charges, shall be effected directly to the first respondent. If the question of law, as to the right to realise collection charges becomes answered by the Apex Court in favour of the State, it will be open for the Revenue to demand balance amount if any, under this head.

The writ petition is disposed of.