R.Rajesh Kumar vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of State Tax - Kerala High Court, 10 February 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 21ST MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.3537 OF 2020(N) PETITIONER: R.RAJESH KUMAR AGED 40 YEARS S/O.A.K.RAJAMANIKKAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.A.K.R.TRADERS, OLIPPARA, KAIRADY, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX STATE GST DEPARTMENT, SPECIAL CIRCLE, PALAKKAD-678001. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678001. DR.THUSHARA JAMES, GOVT.PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.3537 OF 2020(N) 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 10th day of February 2020 Against Ext.P1 order for the assessment year 2013-14 under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal along with the stay application. 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 WP(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 applications.

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 rescue of such litigants.

WP(C).No.3537 OF 2020(N) 3

Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the appellate authority to consider the application of stay within a period of three 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. Steps for recovery of amounts pertaining to Ext.P1 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. AMIT RAWAL JUDGE ACM

WP(C).No.3537 OF 2020(N) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATED 30.07.2019. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 2013-14 DATED 04.10.2019. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31.01.2020. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF NOTICE IN FORM NO.1 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17.01.2020.