New Vattakuzhy Prince Jewellers vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THUR AY, THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1941 WP(C).No.29991 OF 2019(Y) PETITIONER/S: NEW VATTAKUZHY PRINCE JEWELLERS VI/35 F, POOCHINNIPADAM, URAKAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 562, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER V.T.JOHNSON. BY ADVS. SRI.K.J.ABRAHAM SRI.NIKHIL JOHN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF STATE TAXES, II CIRCLE THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 004. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), KERALA STATE GST DEPARTMENT, POOTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 004. GOVERNMENT PLEADER DR.THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.29991 OF 2019(Y) 2 JUDGMENT Against Exts.P1 to P3 assessment orders under the KVAT Act, the petitioner has preferred Exts.P4 to P6 appeals together with Exts.P7 to P9 stay petitions and Exts.P10 to P12 delay condonation applications before the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that even prior to considering the stay petitions, recovery steps are taken by the respondents against the petitioner for recovery of the amounts confirmed by Exts.P1 and P2 assessment orders.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:
Taking note of the fact that the delay in approaching the 2nd respondent is only 261 days, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay and direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass reasoned orders on Exts.P7 to P9 stay petitions within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner.
Recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Exts.P1 to P3 assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition
WP(C).No.29991 OF 2019(Y) 3 together with a copy of this judgment, before the 2nd respondent, for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE WP(C).No.29991 OF 2019(Y) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ORDER NO.32080603329/2015- 16 DATED 30.04.2019 FOR THE YEAR 2015-16. EXHIBIT P2OF THE ORDER NO.32080603329/2016- 17 DATED 30.04.2019 FOR THE YEAR 2016-17. EXHIBIT P3OF THE ORDER NO.32080603329/2017- 18 (4/17 TO 6/17) DATED 30.11.2018. EXHIBIT P4OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN FORM NO.29 FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 30.10.2019. EXHIBIT P5OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN FORM NO.29 FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 30.10.2019. EXHIBIT P6OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN FORM NO.29 FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DATED 30.10.2019. EXHIBIT P7OF THE STAY PETITION IN FORM NO.30 DATED 30.10.2019 FOR THE YEAR 2015-
EXHIBIT P8OF THE STAY PETITION IN FORM NO.30 DATED 30.10.2019 FOR THE YEAR 2016-
EXHIBIT P9OF THE STAY PETITION IN FORM NO.30 DATED 30.10.2019 FOR THE YEAR 2017-
EXHIBIT P10OF DELAY CONDONATION PETITION IN FORM NO.30 DATED 30.10.2019 FOR THE YEAR 2015-16. EXHIBIT P11OF DELAY CONDONATION PETITION IN FORM NO.30 DATED 30.10.2019 FOR THE YEAR 2016-17. EXHIBIT P12OF DELAY CONDONATION PETITION IN FORM NO.30 DATED 30.10.2019 FOR THE YEAR 2017-18.
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.