Suma Jain vs. The Commercial Tax Officer(Works Contract)
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI THUR AY, THE 01ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1941 WP(C).NO.20928 OF 2019 PETITIONER : SUMA JAIN, DREAM KITCHEN, D NO.III/172F-G, NAZRETH BUILDING, IOC JUNCTION, VAIKOM ROAD, UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682307. BY ADVS. SRI.R.MURALEEDHARAN DR.ANIES GEORGE RESPONDENTS: 1 THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER(WORKS CONTRACT) O/O. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682018. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 015. 3 THE STATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STATE GST DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM, AT CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, PIN - 682030. OTHER PRESENT: GOVERNMENT PLEADER, DR. THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).NO.20928 OF 2019 2 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 the stay petition is passed expeditiously. Hence 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 2nd respondent to dispose of the stay petition in Exts.P3. Having regard to the limited prayer and the grounds referred to
WP(C).NO.20928 OF 2019 3 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
// NS P.A. To Judge
WP(C).NO.20928 OF 2019 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13.03.2019. EXHIBIT P2OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03.05.2019. EXHIBIT P3OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FOR STAY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 03.05.2019. EXHIBIT P4OF R.R.NOTICE SERVED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 03.07.2019. RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS:
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.