Elektra Homates vs The Assistant Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 8041 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

    TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.6087 OF 2021(I)


PETITIONER:

              ELEKTRA HOMATES
              MP-XI/49 CARMEL JUNCTION, MUHAMMA P.O., -688525,
              CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
              MANAGING PARTNER SEENA K.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.V.DEVANANDA NARASIMHAM
              SRI.P.H.RIYAS

RESPONDENT:

              THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
              KSGT DEPARTMENT, MINI CIVIL STATION, CHERTHALA,
              ALAPPUZHA-688524.



              GP- SMT. THUSHARA JAMES

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.6087 OF 2021(I)

                                     2

                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 9th day of March 2021

Heard both sides.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the

petitioner apprehended an error apparent on the face of record in the

assessment order at Ext.P2 passed under Section 25(1) of the KVAT

Act, 2003 for the year 2015-2016 and therefore, resorting to the

provisions of Section 66 of the KVAT Act, he applied for rectification of

error apparent on the face of record in the assessment order at

Ext.P2. The grievance of the petitioner is to the effect that application

for rectification, Ext.P3 is still pending before the respondent and in

the meanwhile, the respondent had issued notice of demand for

recovery of the amount determined under the assessment order at

Ext.P2. Hence, the petitioner is praying for directing the respondent to

decide the rectification application at Ext.P3 expeditiously. The

learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that the petitioner

is not pressing prayer clause (i).

3. The learned Government Pleader who takes notice for the

1st respondent opposed the petition.

4. I have considered the submissions so advanced and

perused the materials placed before me. WP(C).No.6087 OF 2021(I)

5. Undisputedly as against the assessment order at Ext.P2,

the application for rectification at Ext.P3 is pending for disposal by the

3rd respondent. Hence the petition is disposed of with the following

directions.

The respondent is directed to decide the rectification application

at Ext.P3 within a period of six weeks after hearing the petitioner. The

petitioner to co-operate with the respondent in expeditious disposal of

the rectification application at Ext.P3. Till disposal of the application at

Ext.P3, the respondent shall keep in abeyance, the coercive action if

any, initiated for recovery in pursuance to the notice of demand,

Ext.P2. The petitioner to supply copy of this judgment to the

respondent for compliance.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR Nsd //true copy// JUDGE PA to Judge WP(C).No.6087 OF 2021(I)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ANNUAL RETURN FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 E-FILED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT ON 6.7.16 BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32040844885/2015-16 DATED 13.1.21 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION DATED 8.2.21 FILED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT ON 11.2.21 ALONG WITH EVIDENCES TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE APPLICATION.