9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 1005X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the writ petition, which admittedly has become final on dismissal of the writ appeal. With regard to the sequence of events, case of the petitioner is that, he was engaged in some petty rubber trade dealing with raw rubber and when the respondents completed the assessment without any regard to the actual facts and figures and the mandatory requirements under the statute, the petitioner approached this court by filing W.P. (C) No. 38448 of 2003, which led to exhibit P3 judgment. As per exhibit P3, the assessment orders were set aside and the departmental authorities were directed to furnish copies of the relevant proceedings first and then finalise the assessment. Pursuant to exhibit P3, provisional assessment was made as borne by exhibits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner to have contested the matter in "forma pauperis". Reliance was also placed on the decision rendered by the apex court in State of Haryana v. Smt.Darshana Devi AIR 1979 SC 855. After considering the various contentions raised by the petitioner, it was held by this court that the challenge raised against the statutory prescription to remit the additional court fee was quite wrong and misconceived, in view of the declaration of law by a single Bench of this court as per the decision in A.P. Ismail (Anwar Traders) v. State of Kerala [2006] 144 STC 476; [2005] 3 KLT 1052 and affirmed by the Division Bench as per the decision rendered in Chackolas Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2006] 145 STC 250 (Ker); [20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, it is seen that the issue considered therein was whether the revision petition filed under section 41 of the KGST Act was maintainable or not, if the appeal preferred before the Tribunal was dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the same. After considering the relevant provisions of law, it was observed by this court that, on dismissal of the appeals refusing to entertain the same beyond the period of limitation, by virtue of "proviso" to section 39(1) of the KGST Act; the order declining to entertain the appeals by the Tribunal was not revisable under section 79(1) of the KGST Act. However, one sentence was also added in the following manner. "It will be open to challenge orders 'probably' in the writ petition". The fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the notice of this court. Exhibits P15 and P16 applications preferred by the petitioner for exempting from such liability were rejected by the Tribunal as per exhibit P17, holding that there was no provision to provide such exemption. The correctness and sustainability of the impugned orders passed by the third and second respondents was subjected to challenge before this court, leading to exhibit P18 judgment declining interference in this writ petition; which has been confirmed by the Division Bench by passing exhibit P19; dismissing the writ appeal. This being the position, the attempt of the petitioner to reconsider the matter further, by raising the very same grounds of challenge through a fresh writ petition, cannot but be describe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
