Alukka Gold Palace vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('KVAT Act') on the rolls of the 1st respondent, questioned the Exts.P1 and P2 assessment orders, before the 2nd respondent, who rejected it. Later, the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent with the Ext.P3 second appeals. The petitioner has also filed the Ext.P4 stay petition and the Ext.P5 delay petition in the appeals. The delay is said to be 147 days. The petitioner complains that before the appellate forum
could
consider
his
interlocutory applications, the respondent authority is taking coercive steps.
This Court, after hearing the learned counsel on either side, disposes of this writ petition holding that the 3rd respondent will consider
Exts.P4
and P5
interlocutory applications, including the delay condonation petition, at the earliest and pass orders, possibly, within one month.
The respondent authority shall defer coercive steps until the 3rd respondent considers the interlocutory applications. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, Judge okb. //// P.A. to Judge APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12.05.2017 FOR THE YEAR 2011-12. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 31.12.2017 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF EXT.P1 ORDER. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 17.10.2018 FOR THE YEAR 2011-12. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION DATED 17.10.2018. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 17.10.2018 IN EXT.P3 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 15.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.