Hotel Raj Residency (Rotana Inn(P)LTD) vs. Assistant Commissioner
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI FRIDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1941 WP(C).No.21063 of 2019 PETITIONER: HOTEL RAJ RESIDENCY (ROTANA INN(P)LTD) NH 47, KALLUVATHUKKAL , KOLLAM 691 578, REPRESENTED BY ITS MG. DIRECTOR SRI. THYAGARAJAN.D. BY ADVS. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN SRI.V.JAYANANDAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: 1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SPECIAL CIRCLE, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM 691 002. 2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), STATE GST DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM, 691 002. 3 THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (RR), KOLLAM, PIN-691013. 4 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY (TAXES), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. GP. DR. THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2- WP(C).No.21063 of 2019 JUDGMENT The petitioner filed appeal in Ext.P2 aggrieved by the order of assessment in Ext.P1 made under Section 17(3) of the KGST Act, 1963. 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 petition is passed expeditiously.
-3- WP(C).No.21063 of 2019
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
-4- WP(C).No.21063 of 2019 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 32021306482/14-15 DATED 25/3/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 16/4/2019 FIELD BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT. P1 ORDER. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 16/4/2019 FILED IN EXT. P2 APPEAL BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF NOTICE RRC No. 2019/5389/02 DATED 29/6/2019 (WITH TRANSLATION) ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL
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.