Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1945 WA NO. 633 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 2540/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
M/S. OCEANUS DWELLINGS PVT. LTD.
PRIYADARSHINI NAGAR, PUTHUR, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY K.A. FRANCIS, REGIONAL MANAGER, PIN - 678005 BY ADVS.
HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER-I (WC) STATE GST DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001 2 THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX/AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOZHIKODE , REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. SECRETARY, PIN - 673032 OTHER PRESENT:
GP : MM JASMINE THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA. No. 633 of 2023 2 A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ …...................................................
W.A. No. 633 of 2023 …..............................................................
Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2023 JUDGMENT Mohammed Nias C.P., J.
This writ appeal is preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition that challenged Ext.P6 order passed by the Tribunal imposing a condition of payment of 30% of the dues as a condition for stay. The Tribunal had found that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case and balancing the interest of the petitioner as well as that of the State/Revenue, an interim stay was granted on condition that the petitioner deposits 30% of the modified demand and also on furnishing simple bond for the balance amount within one month from 7.12.2020. The petitioner had impugned the said order in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, by judgment dated 2.2.2020, found that the discretion exercised by the Tribunal cannot be said to be arbitrary, and no interference was warranted. The petitioner was granted one month’s time to comply with the directions in Ext.P6 judgment. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the conditions are not complied with so far. He
WA. No. 633 of 2023 3 argues that the impugned judgment is illegal as it did not consider their contention that Ext.P6 order was passed in a mechanical manner.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned Government Pleader (Taxes), we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge considered the contentions of the writ petitioner and found that Ext.P6 cannot be said to be illegal or that it was an erroneous exercise of the discretion vested with the Tribunal. We do not think that the reasons given in the impugned judgment call for any interference in this writ appeal.
The Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JUDGE al/-/3.4.2023