Noorjehans Hot Pan Restaurant vs. The State Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUE AY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 30TH ASWINA, 1941 WP(C).No.27878 OF 2019(H) PETITIONER: NOORJEHANS HOT PAN RESTAURANT EMERALD RESIDENCY, NEAR KSRTC JUNCTION, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, ABDUL RAWOOF T.K, AGED 44, S/O. P.C HAMSA BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR 680 001 2 THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO. II, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR 680 001 3 THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SALES TAX COMPLEX, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 015 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.27878 OF 2019(H) 2 JUDGMENT The challenge in the Writ Petition is against Ext.P6 conditional order of stay passed by the 3rd respondent Tribunal by which the Tribunal directed the petitioner to pay 30% of the demand confirmed against him by the penalty order, as a condition for stay of the recovery of balance amount of penalty confirmed against him pending disposal of the appeal. Although various contentions are raised by the petitioner in the Writ Petition in its challenge against Ext.P6 conditional order of stay, I am of the view that Ext.P6 order does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant an interference with the same in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In Ext.P6 order, the 3rd respondent Tribunal has granted stay stating reasons as to why the petitioner was obliged to deposit 30% of the penalty amount confirmed against him pending disposal of the appeal. I also find that the petitioner had not produced the books of account either before the original authority or before the appellate authority to substantiate his case on merits before the said authorities, and it was under these circumstances that the appellate Tribunal found it necessary to direct the petitioner to deposit 30% of the confirmed demand as a condition for grant of stay of recovery of

WP(C).No.27878 OF 2019(H) 3 the balance amount. The petitioner has not made out a case warranting interference with Ext.P6 conditional order of stay, in these proceedings. I therefore dismiss the Writ Petition in its challenge against Ext.P6 order. Taking note of the fact that the time granted by the Tribunal for complying with the conditions in Ext.P6 order has expired, I direct that if the petitioner complies with the conditions in Ext.P6 order within one month from today, then the same shall be treated as in compliance with the directions of the Tribunal in Ext.P6 order. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE mns

WP(C).No.27878 OF 2019(H) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 28.11.2017 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), THRISSUR DATED 26.06.2018 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE PERIOD APRIL TO JUNE 2016 DATED 13.11.2018 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF RETURN FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR PERIOD APRIL TO JUNE 2016 DATED 28.02.1018 EXHIBIT P4 A COPY OF RETURN FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR PERIOD JULY TO SEPTEMBER 2016 DATED 02.03.2018 EXHIBIT P4 B COPY OF RETURN FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR PERIOD OCT TO DEC 2016 DATED 02.03.2018 EXHIBIT P4 C COPY OF RETURN FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR PERIOD JAN TO MARCH 2017 DATED 05.03.2018 EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.T (REV.) NO. 207/14 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 26.05.2015 EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF ORDER IN TA (VAT) NO. 1034/18 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 26.07.2019 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //// P.A TO JUDGE