Pious Louis vs. The State Tax Officer - Kerala High Court, 20 September 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 29TH BHADRA, 1941 WP(C).No.24925 OF 2019(M) PETITIONER: PIOUS LOUIS, PROPRIETOR, CELESTIAN TRADING COMPANY, MMC 1/101A, KALAPPURAYIL BUILDING, MUDAVOOR.P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686669 BY ADVS. SRI.R.MURALEEDHARAN DR.ANIES GEORGE RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, SECOND CIRCLE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, COCHIN-686 673 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 015. 3 THE STATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, MATTANCHERY,(IN-CHARGE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MUVATTUPUZHA), COCHIN, PIN-682 002 4 THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., BRANCH OFFICE AT PERUMBAVOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683542 GP - DR. THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.24925 OF 2019(M) 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner filed appeal in Ext.P2 aggrieved by the order of assessment in Ext.P1 made under the KVAT Act. The petitioner has filed the appeal with a delay condonation petition of 64 days in Ext.P4 and Ext.P3 stay petition. The petitioner prays for appropriate direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of Exts.P4 and P3 expeditiously.

The case of petitioner is that either the mere filing of appeal or mere pendency of appeal does not amount to granting stay by the appellate authority. The delay in considering and disposing of Exts.P4 and P3 results in the assessing officer taking steps for recovering the tax amount which is under challenge in Ext.P2. The assessing officer, if is successful in his effort the statutory appeal would become either academic or ineffective. It is further contended by the petitioner that in the manner the law provides for protecting the interest of appellant pending appeal,

WP(C).No.24925 OF 2019(M) 3 the orders on delay petitions and stay petitions are passed expeditiously. Hence the writ petition.

Perused Exts.P1, P2, P3, P4 and P5. Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to second respondent to dispose of the delay condonation petition and stay petition in Exts.P4 and P3 respectively. Having regard to the limited prayer and the grounds referred to above, this Court is satisfied that the writ petition can be disposed of by this order: (a) The appellate authority/second respondent considers and disposes of Exts.P4 and P3 applications as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. (b) The recovery, including realisation of any amount due towards tax arrears, which is pending before the appellate authority is stayed for two months.

WP(C).No.24925 OF 2019(M) 4 (c) Respondents issue communications recalling the attachment of bank account of petitioner if attached. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE PV

WP(C).No.24925 OF 2019(M) 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30.05.2018 EXHIBIT P2OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.09.2018 EXHIBIT P3OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FOR STAY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.09.2018 EXHIBIT P4OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION TO CONDONE DELAY FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10.09.2018 EXHIBIT P5OF PROHIBITORY ORDER SERVED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 03.09.2019 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL \\// PA TO JUDGE PV