Skip to content


Hema Kunju Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Thrissur - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantHema Kunju
RespondentCommercial Tax Officer, Thrissur
Excerpt:
.....the petitioner, in the common affidavit filed along with the application for condonation of delay, stated the reason that in fact the petitioner had entrusted her accountant to arrange and file the appeal through the chartered wp(c).12813/2014 2 accountant. the accountant however, did not submit the papers or documents to the chartered accountant and only due to his negligent act, proper appeal could not be filed within time. on coming to know of the omission, immediately thereafter, the petitioner had approached the appellate authority and had also filed an application for condonation of delay. the petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of the appeals on the ground that the petitioner had not cured the defects in the appeals.3. on a perusal of the documents, it is seen that the.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE22D DAY OF MAY20141ST JYAISHTA, 1936 WP(C).No. 12813 of 2014 (B) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- HEMA KUNJU A.K PROPRIETRIX, M/S. MEKKATTIL AGRO CARE, PATTIKKAD PEECHI ROAD JUNCTION, THRISSUR680652. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENTS : ------------------------ 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR IST CIRCLE, 680 001.

2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR680001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2205-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BP WP(C).No. 12813 of 2014 (B) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1: COPY OF THE ORDER

ISSUED BY THE IS RESPONDENT. P1(A): COPY OF THE ORDER

ISSUED BY THE IS RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE2D RESPONDENT. P2(A): COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE2D RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. P3(A): COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. P4: COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER. P5: COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF THE ORDER

ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. --------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE BP K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 12813 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 22nd May, 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT

Petitioner is an assessee registered under the 1st respondent and carrying on the business of trading in agricultural implements. For the years 2011-12 and 2012-13, penalty orders were passed against the petitioner as evidenced by Exts.P1 and P1(a). Admittedly no appeal was filed within the time stipulated as per the KVAT Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Petitioner approached the Appellate Authority with delay of 241 days with two separate appeals and also filed an application for condonation of delay.

2. The petitioner, in the common affidavit filed along with the application for condonation of delay, stated the reason that in fact the petitioner had entrusted her Accountant to arrange and file the appeal through the Chartered WP(C).12813/2014 2 Accountant. The Accountant however, did not submit the papers or documents to the Chartered Accountant and only due to his negligent act, proper appeal could not be filed within time. On coming to know of the omission, immediately thereafter, the petitioner had approached the Appellate Authority and had also filed an application for condonation of delay. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of the appeals on the ground that the petitioner had not cured the defects in the appeals.

3. On a perusal of the documents, it is seen that the defect pointed out by the Appellate Authority was by Ext.P5 in which it was stated that the reason stated is not satisfactory. By Ext.P5, the Appellate Authority informed the petitioner that the reason stated is not satisfactory and hence directed the said defect be cured. Subsequently by Ext.P6, the Appellate WP(C).12813/2014 3 Authority rejected both the appeals on the ground that the defects stand not cured. It has to be noticed that if the Appellate Authority was not satisfied by the reasons stated, for delay occassioned, then; he should have necessarily rejected the same on that ground and not issued a notice intimating defect in the application.

4. In any event, the application is delayed by 241 days and according to this Court, the petitioner has made sufficient satisfactory explanation to condone the delay. However, considering the fact that it was only due to the negligence that the appeals were not filed in time, it is deemed that the appeals be restored to the files of the first Appellate Authority on terms. The petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.2500/- each to the Mediation Centre and produce the receipt before the first Appellate Authority within a period of two weeks from today WP(C).12813/2014 4 upon which both the appeals are to be restored and taken to the files of the Appellate Authority and considered on merits. Writ petition disposed of. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge Mrcs //True Copy//


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //