Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 695 (KER)

R. LATHA v. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

2007-10-16

ANTONY DOMINIC

body2007
JUDGMENT ANTONY DOMINIC, J. – The prayer in this writ petition is to quash exhibits P15 to P18 and to declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay the penalty imposed by the aforesaid orders. Exhibits P15 to P18 are the orders issued by the second respondent imposing penalty on the petitioner for violation of the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. Though statutory remedies are provided against exhibits P15 to P18 that has not been availed of by the petitioner. Instead, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner for not availing of the statutory remedies, is that following exhibits P10 and P11, when the first respondent considered the matter and issued exhibit P14 order, the first respondent had disagreed with the findings of the Appellate Tribunal. Counsel would contend that since the first respondent was not competent to disagree with the conclusions of the Appellate Tribunal, consequential orders exhibits P15 to P18 are without jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel, in view of this the petitioner is not bound to pursue the statutory remedy and can maintain the writ petition. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In my view the petitioner has to be relegated to pursue the statutory remedies against exhibits P15 to P18. As far as the question regarding the competency of the first respondent to disagree with the findings in exhibits P10 and P11 orders of the Tribunal is concerned, that also is a matter which the authority can examine once the petitioner takes recourse to the statutory remedies. Although the petitioner has raised objections to exhibit P14, the said order is dated November 19, 2005 and the petitioner has not challenged the said order till date and this order has become final. The fact that exhibit P14 is an order of remand does not mean that the petitioner should not have challenged the objectionable part of exhibit P14 in time. Therefore, prima facie, I am not inclined to allow the petitioner to argue on the merits of exhibit P14 at this distance of time. However, I do not enter into a conclusive finding on this aspect as otherwise it will prejudicially affect the petitioner in the further proceedings that he may initiate against the impugned orders. Therefore, prima facie, I am not inclined to allow the petitioner to argue on the merits of exhibit P14 at this distance of time. However, I do not enter into a conclusive finding on this aspect as otherwise it will prejudicially affect the petitioner in the further proceedings that he may initiate against the impugned orders. Therefore, I do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition. Relegating the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy and leaving open the contentions raised this writ petition is dismissed.