Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1940
WP(C).No. 26387 of 2018
-----------------------
PETITIONER:
----------
N.T. SEBASTIAN,
AUTHORIZED PERSON,
M/S ST.MARY'S CEMENT PVT LTD.,
ETTUMANNOOR.
BY ADV.SRI.C.K.SREEJITH
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------
1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KVAT SPECIAL CIRCLE,
COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM-686001.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),
COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM-686001.
3. ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOTTAYAM-686001.
4. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
STATE GST DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION,
KOTTAYAM-686001.
5. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER DR.THUSHARA JAMES
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 26387 of 2018 (W)
--------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
---------------------
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MODIFIED ORDER U/S 25(1)
DTD. 25.7.2012.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER
NO.K.V.A.T. A 601/3.8.2017 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN
FORM NO.31 DTD.21.10.2017.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR EARLIER
HEARING DTD.21.10.2017.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY
DTD. 21.10.2017.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
NIL
---------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
mbr/
09.08.2018.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
==================================
W.P.(C)No.26387 of 2018
======================================
Dated this the 3rd day of August 2018
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 Ext.P2 appellate order and Ext.P1 modified assessment order before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has also filed a stay petition in the appeal. Ventilating his grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition and the appeal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3.I reckon the petitioner has exercised his statutory remedy of filing an appeal. It appears that he has also filed a stay petition. Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps,
-2- W.P.(C)No.26387 of 2018 until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 2nd respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the 3rd respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE
