K.S.Sanal Kumar v. Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/4TH VAISAKHA, 1937 WA.No. 889 of 2015 () IN WP(C).10381/2015 ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 10381/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 31-03-2015 APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
------------------------ K.S.SANAL KUMAR CHELAKKAPPALLIL AGENCIES, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI.AJI V.DEV RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM 686002.
2. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER SQUAD NO.III, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SASTHRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686001.
3. ASST.COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT) SPECIAL CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, TAX COMPLEX KOTTAYAM 686002.
4. INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM 686002. R BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI SOJAN JAMES THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.VINOD CHANDRAN & P.V ASHA, JJ.
----------------------------------------------------- W.A No.889 of 2015 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of April, 2015
JUDGMENT
Vinod Chandran, J.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which refused to interfere with the order of the appellate authority which directed remittance of 30% of the penalty amounts. The learned Single Judge having perused the order passed by the appellate authority found that there is nothing warranting interference with the said order, in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to urge contentions on merit, against the penalty order passed. However, we are exercising a confined jurisdiction of examining an order of the learned Single Judge in appeal. The learned Single Judge had already declined invocation of the extraordinary discretionary remedy and we are not inclined to interfere with such refusal. However since the petitioner seeks further time to make the deposit, the petitioner shall remit 30% of the penalty amount in two equal monthly instalments, ie., the first instalment will be
W.A No.889 of 2015 made on or before 25.05.2015 and the second instalment will be made on or before 25.06.2015.
The Writ Appeal is dismissed with the above direction. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge Sd/- P.V.ASHA Judge rtr/ /true copy/
P.V.ASHA, J ---------------------------------------------- R.P. No. in W.P.(C) No.
----------------------------------------------
O R D E R
Dated 31st July, 2009.