Afsal Iqbal P vs. The State Tax Officer - Kerala High Court, 05 March 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL THUR AY, THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.6721 OF 2020(M) PETITIONER/S: AFSAL IQBAL P M/S. MIZAJ RESTAURANT, THATTAMPADY, KARUMALLOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI SHRI. HRITHWIK D. NAMBOOTHIRI RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER STATE GST DEPARTMENT, N.PARAVUR-683513. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), STATE GST DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM-682015. 3 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, PARAVUR TALUK, PARAVUR-683513. OTHER PRESENT: GP DR.THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.6721 OF 2020(M) 2 JUDGMENT As against Ext.P1 order for the assessment year 2016-17 under the Kerala value Added Tax Act, petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal, Ext.P3 delay condonation application along with Ext.P4 stay application before the 2nd respondent. The case of the petitioner is that, the 1st respondent is proceeding further with the revenue recovery prior to considering the stay petition, which impelled the petitioner to approach this Court.

This Court in W.P.(C) No.3800/2020 had passed a detailed order after having called the Assistant Commissioner of Law in court with regard to the numbering of appeal and hearing of the stay application. Several writ petitions are pending in this Court seeking redressal of grievance for non-hearing of the appeal, along with stay application.

This writ petition is also of the similar nature and the petitioner is in dilemma. In such circumstances, this Court cannot sit as a mute spectator without coming to the

WP(C).No.6721 OF 2020(M) 3 rescue of such litigants.

Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: i) Taking note of the fact that the delay in approaching the 2nd respondent is 132 days, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay and direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass reasoned orders on Ext.P4 stay petition within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, as the petitioner in such circumstances had not opted for automatic stay in view of the amended provisions of Section 55 (4) of KVAT Act, 2003. ii) Steps for recovery of amounts pertaining to Ext.P5 shall be kept in abeyance, till such time the stay application is disposed of. It is made clear that the interim arrangement is only till the adjudication of the stay application. However, this will not stand in the way of the appellate authority deciding the appeal along with the stay application. sab AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE

WP(C).No.6721 OF 2020(M) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.A 567/18/2016-17 DATED 30.10.2018 FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2OF THE FIRST APPEAL DATED 26.2.2020 FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION DATED 26.02.2020 FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 26.2.2020 FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE RRC NO.2019/6765/07 DATED 30.5.2019 FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER WITH TRANSLATION.