Fujitec INDIA PVT.LTD vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI WEDNE AY, THE 04TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 13TH BHADRA, 1941 WP(C).No.24105 OF 2019(K) PETITIONER/S: FUJITEC INDIA PVT.LTD PLOT NO. 52, EIGHTH AVENUE, DOMESTIC TRAFFIC AREA, MAHINDRA WORLD CITY, CHANGALPETTU, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-603 002, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER MR. M.J. NAVEED SAIT. BY ADV. SMT.K.LATHA RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER GST DEPARTMENT, SQUAD NO.1, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM-682 024 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682 019. 3 THE STATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ERNAKULAM AT CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD-682 030 OTHER PRESENT: GP. DR. THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 24105/2019 -2- J U D G M E N T Dated this the 4th day of September 2019 The petitioner filed appeal in Ext.P2 aggrieved by the order of assessment in Ext.P1 made under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. The petitioner has filed the appeal with Ext.P3 stay petition. The petitioner prays for appropriate direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of Ext.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 Exts.P3 and P3A 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, the order on stay petition is passed expeditiously. Hence
W.P.(C) No. 24105/2019 -3- the writ petition.
Perused Exts. P1, P2 and P3. Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to second respondent to dispose of the stay petition in Ext.P3. 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 Ext.P3 stay application as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. (b) The respondents are directed not to take coercive steps or recover the amounts determined in the order under appeal for ten weeks from today. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE JS
W.P.(C) No. 24105/2019 -4- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 THEOF THE PENALTY ORDER NO. OR-1/02/2018-2019 DATED 27.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 THEOF THE APPEAL IN FORM NO. 29 ALONG WITH GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT AGAINST THE EXT.P1 PENALTY ORDER. EXHIBIT P3 THEOF STAY PETITION FILED IN THE EXT.P2 APPEALS. EXHIBIT P4 THEOF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 27.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER BASED ON THE EXT. P1 PENALTY ORDER NO. OR- 1/02/2018-2019
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.