9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsequently withdrawn by the petitioner and the said assessments are now pending before the assessing authority, that I felt it would be in the interests of justice, and to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, that directions should be issued to the assessing authority of the petitioner namely, the Commercial Tax Officer, Works Contract, Kozhikode, to consider the issue of imposition of penalty on the petitioner as well. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - W.P.(C). Nos. 2283 of 2011, 19797 and 22056 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 28-10-2015 - A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. P. Raghunath and Premjit Nagendran for the petitioner Ranjith, Government Pleader, for the respondent JUDGMENT As the petitioner in all these cases is the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Exts.P9 and P10 orders imposing a penalty on the petitioner were passed mechanically by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raheja Development Corporation cited supra. Although in Exts.P9 and P10 orders, there is a reproduction of the objections preferred by the petitioner to the notice proposing the imposition of penalty, there is no consideration of the factual aspects pertaining to the petitioner's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty can be imposed on the petitioner assessee at all, considering the fact that the decision of the Supreme Court in Raheja Development Corporation cited supra, was subsequently doubted by the Supreme Court and referred to a larger bench, which pronounced its judgment only on 26th September 2013, through the decision in Larsen and Toubro Limited and Another v. State of Karnataka and Another [ 2013 (65) VST 1 SC ]. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by quashing Exts.P9 and P10 orders and relegating the matter to the assessing authority for a fresh de novo consideration in accordance with the directions issued above. 4. I make it clear that it is taking note of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
