Amity Rock Products PVT. LTD. vs. K V A T Appellate Tribunal - Kerala High Court, 11 October 2018

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 19TH ASWINA, 1940 WP(C).No. 33220 of 2018 PETITIONER/S: AMITY ROCK PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., IX/376, THOTTATHUMKUZHY, CHUNKAPPARA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ABRAHAM K. THOMAS. BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.VINEETH KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT/S: 1 K V A T APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) II KERALA STATE GST DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM-691001. 3 THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689645. OTHER PRESENT: GP. DR. THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- W.P.(C). No. 33220 of 2018

JUDGMENT The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('KVAT Act') on the rolls of the 3rd respondent, questioned the Ext.P2 assessment order, before the 2nd respondent, who rejected it. Later, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent with second appeals. The petitioner has also filed stay petitions in the appeals. Ventilating his grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition, 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 on time his statutory remedy of filing appeals. It appears that he has also filed stay petitions. Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay petitions. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 1st respondent

-3- W.P.(C). No. 33220 of 2018 considers the stay petitions. I also hope that the 1st respondent will dispose of the stay petitions expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE das APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE NOTICE U/S.8(B) READ WITH SECTION 66 OF THE ACT 2003. EXHIBIT P2OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.11.05/2015 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE. EXHIBIT P3OF THE ORDER DT.28/02/2018 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOIRTY. EXHIBIT P4OF APPEAL DT.23-08-2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5OF THE URGENT MOVING PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH EX.P4 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P6OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH EXT.P4 APPEAL.