K.J. Mathew vs. State Of Kerala - Kerala High Court, 07 November 2018

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WEDNESDAY,THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1940 WP(C).No. 36081 of 2018 PETITIONER/S: K.J. MATHEW AGED 54 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, PROPRIETOR, KOCHUKUDIYIL AGENCIES, NO.8/1058, DOHA TOWERS, R.S.ROAD, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX DEPARTMENT,PALAKKAD DISTRICT,PIN-678001. 3 THE STATE TAX OFFICER STATE GST DEPARTMENT,POST OTTAPPALAM,PALAKKAD DISTRICT,PIN-679101. 4 THE INSPG.ASST.COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES,NINAN COMPLEX,METTUPALAYAM STREET,NEAR MUNICIPAL BUS STAND,PALAKKAD DISTRICT,PIN-678001. OTHER PRESENT: GP DR. THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax

WPC No.36081 of 2018 2 Act, 2003, questioned the Ext.P1 assessment order, before the second respondent. The petitioner has also filed stay and delay petitions in the appeal. Ventilating his grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay and delay petitions, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

I reckon the petitioner has exercised his statutory remedy of filing an appeal. It appears that he has also filed stay and delay petitions. Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay and delay petitions. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the second respondent considers the stay and delay petitions. I also hope that the second respondent will dispose of the stay and delay petitions expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

WPC No.36081 of 2018 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 THEOF THE ORDER DATED 27.6.2018 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 THEOF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 17.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 THEOF THE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 29.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 THEOF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT.P1 ORDER DATED 31.10.2018. EXHIBIT P5 THEOF THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONING DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL DATED 31.10.2018 EXHIBIT P6 THEOF THE APPLICATION FOR URGENT HEARING OF THE APPEAL DATED 31.10.2018 EXHIBIT P7 THEOF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY FILED FILED ALONG WITH EXT.P4 APPEAL BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31.10.2018. Css/