MUTHOOT HOTELLS AND TOURISM VENTURE (P) LTD v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition is disposed of as above
Provisions considered
Judgment
w.p.c.30765/07 2“a)call for the records leading to Ext.P2 order of the 1st respondentand quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari orsuch other writ order or direction.b)To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order ordirection directing the 1st Respondent to permit the petitioner tomake payment under Section 8(c)(i) of the KVAT Act 2003pending disposal of this writ petition.c)To grant a stay of operation of Exts.P2 order.”2.Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitsthat the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of compounding. However, it is not disputed that no notice has been issued to thepetitioner before rejecting his application for compounding. It isalso not disputed before me that Rules prescribe that noticeshould be issued to the petitioner, if the assessing officerintends to reject the application. I view of the same, I quashExt.P2 order and direct the 1st respondent to consider the matterafresh after issuing notice to the petitioner as required under therules and affording an opportunity of being heard to thepetitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above.sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE w.p.c.30765/07 3
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is disposed of as above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Companies Act, 2013; KeralaValue Added Tax Act, 2003; KVAT Act, 2003 — s. 8(c)(i).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 01 Nov 2007. The bench was S SIRI JAGAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.