Magi Thomas vs. The State Tax Officer (Investigation Branch)
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS WEDNE AY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 25TH POUSHA, 1941 WP(C).No.1009 OF 2020(A) PETITIONER: MAGI THOMAS AGED 51 YEARS MALAYIL HOUSE, OONUKAL P. O., KUTTAMANGALAM, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTIRCT - 686 693. BY ADVS. SRI.K.J.ABRAHAM SRI.NIKHIL JOHN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER (INVESTIGATION BRANCH) KERALA STATE GST DEPARTMENT, MATTANCHERRY AT MINI CIVIL STATION, ALUVA - 683 101. 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) KERALA STATE GST DEPARTMENT, PERUMANOOR P. O., ERNAKULAM - 682 015. 3 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, 4TH FLOOR, REVENUE TOWER, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 666. BY ADVS. SMT.M.M.JASMINE, GOVT.PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C). No. 1009 of 2020 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ------------------------------------ W.P(C). No. 1009 of 2020 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of January, 2020 JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 penalty order, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P-3 stay petition along with Ext.P4 petition to condone delay. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that before the appellate authority could consider the interim stay application, coercive recovery proceedings have been initiated. The petitioner submits that it is unjust to enforce recovery through coercive proceedings when the stay application is still undisposed of.
Heard Sri.Abraham K.J, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.M.M.Jasmine, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
After hearing both sides and after taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the 2nd respondent shall take up the matters in Ext.P-4 delay condonation application and Ext.P-3 stay application filed in Ext.P-2 appeal and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through their authorised representative/ counsel, if
W.P(C). No. 1009 of 2020 3 any, shall pass orders on those applications without much delay, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Until orders are thus passed on the abovesaid delay condonation and stay application, further coercive steps for enforcement of the impugned order will be kept in abeyance. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of. ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE KAS
W.P(C). No. 1009 of 2020 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE PENALTY ORDER NO.IBM- III/IR-150/2014-15 (2013-14)/OR-25 DATED 16.11.2018. EXHIBIT P2OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN FORM NO.29 DATED 6.1.2020 FOR THE YEAR 2013-14. EXHIBIT P3OF THE STAY PETITION IN FORM NO.30 DATED 6.1.2020 FOR THE YEAR 2013-
EXHIBIT P4OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION IN FORM NO.30 DATED 6.1.2020. EXHIBIT P5OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE NO.RRC 2019/16908/07 DATED 29.11.2019. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL //// PA TO JUDGE
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.