M/S.Olive Builders vs. State Tax Officer (Works Contract)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner filed an appeal and a stay petition against an assessment order issued under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. While the stay petition was pending before the appellate authority, the assessing officer initiated coercive recovery proceedings.
Held
The High Court directed the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the petitioner's stay application within two months. It also restrained the respondents from taking coercive steps to recover the amounts for ten weeks.
Key Issues
The key issue was the delay in the appellate authority disposing of a stay petition, which led to the assessing officer initiating recovery proceedings for the disputed tax amount.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT 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 of Ext.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, the order on stay
WP(C).No.23487 OF 2019(I) -3- petition is passed expeditiously. Hence the writ petition.
Perused Exts. P1, P2, P3. Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to 2nd 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/2nd respondent considers and disposes of Ext.P3 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 orders under appeal for ten weeks from today. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE JS
WP(C).No.23487 OF 2019(I) -4- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32072036332/11-12 DT.20/3/2019 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 30.4.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT P1 ORDER EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 30.4.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN EXT.P3 APPEAL EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE NO RRC NO.89/2019 DATED 4/7/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
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.