9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sri.Liju Stephen For The Respondent. JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, Appellant is a dealer under the KVAT Act. By Exts.P16 to 20 orders, issued under Section 67 of the Act, penalty was levied on the appellant on the ground that Yash Hose Tap and Onida Washing Machine Tap, attracting tax at the rate of 12.5% as per Entry No.101 of SRO No.82/2006 were mis-classified and tax was collected and remitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the statutory authorities. Seeking review of the judgment, appellant filed R.P. No.505 of 2015. The review petition was declined to be entertained by order dated 18.06.2015. It is in these circumstances, the writ appeal has been filed. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 4. Contention raised by the counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... although both sides have addressed their contentions, we are conscious of the fact that the scope for enquiry in this appeal is confined to the question whether the view taken by the learned Single Judge relegating the appellant to pursue the statutory remedies is legal or not. Admittedly, the statutory remedies are available to the appellant against the orders impugned in the writ petition. Law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned Single Judge has acted illegally in relegating the appellant to pursue the statutory remedies that are available to them. However, having regard to the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, since the time for filing revision against the order impugned has expired, we direct that if the appellant files revision against the impugned orders within two weeks from today, the concerned re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
