IRSHAD HUSSAIN vs. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & STATE TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/6171/2018HC KeralaKLHC01037761201805 March 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, the Court disposed of the writ petition by stating that the petitioner had the liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances. This implies that the Court found the writ petition to be either not the appropriate remedy or that the petitioner had not exhausted other available legal avenues. The Court did not make any findings on the substantive issues raised by the petitioner or the revenue's contentions. The operative direction was to allow the petitioner to approach the correct forum, indicating no decision on the underlying dispute.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Irshad Hussain, operating as Alleppey Marbles, represented by his Power of Attorney holder Smt. Rahimath Irshad, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petition challenges an action by the Agricultural Income Tax & State Tax Officer, Alappuzha, and the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals), State Goods & Service Tax, Alappuzha. The Deputy Tahsildar (RR), Ambalapuzha Taluk, Alappuzha, is also a respondent. The specific order or action under challenge and the assessment year(s) are not explicitly detailed in the provided text, nor is the amount in dispute. The procedural history leading to this writ petition is also not elaborated.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to seek intervention through a writ petition. The petitioner likely argued for the maintainability of the writ petition, possibly on grounds of an illegal or arbitrary action by the revenue authorities, or a failure to provide adequate remedy through the appellate process. The revenue, represented by the Senior Government Pleader, would likely have contended that the writ petition is not maintainable, possibly arguing that alternative remedies, such as a statutory appeal or revision, were available to the petitioner and should have been pursued. The specific legal provisions or precedents relied upon by either side are not recorded in the provided text.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 6171 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) IRSHAD HUSSAIN ALLEPPEY MARBLES, PATHIRAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SMT. RAHIMATH IRSHAD, RAHMATH MANZIL, M.O. WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS.SRI.AJI V.DEV SMT.O.A.NURIYA RESPONDENT(S): 1. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GOODS & SERVICE TAXES, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER [APPEALS], STATE GOODS & SERVICE TAXES, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR [RR], AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, AMBALAPUZHA - 688 001, ALAPPUZHA. R BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6171 of 2018 (V) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 25.09.2017. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 10.10.2017. EXHIBIT P2[A] A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 10.10.2017. EXHIBIT P2[B] A TRUE COPY OF THE URGENT HEARING PETITION FILED FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 10.10.2017. EXHIBIT 3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR HEARING OF EXT.P2 APPEAL ON 31.01.2018 DATED 15.01.2018. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RR NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN FORM NO. 1 DATED 08.02.2018. // TRUE COPY // Sd/- PS TO JUDGE Kvs/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.6171 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of March, 2018

J U D G M E N T The grievance voiced by the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in disposing of Ext.P2 appeal preferred by them challenging Ext.P1 assessment order. It is pointed out by the petitioner that the appeal was though heard finally on 31.01.2018, orders are yet to be passed.

Today, when this matter was taken up, the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that orders will be passed finally within two weeks from today.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of recording the submission made by the learned Government Pleader, and directing the respondents

WPC.No.6171 of 2018 2 concerned to defer the proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 order by three weeks. P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. Kvs/- ////

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →