Cochin Fire Tech INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. Assistant Commissioner (Works Contract)
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI THUR AY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1941 WP(C).No.20292 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: COCHIN FIRE TECH INDIA PVT. LTD. FIRE TECH HOUSE, VATTEKKATTU ROAD, KALOOR KADAVANTHRA ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 017, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.P.SREEKUMAR. BY ADVS. SRI.R.MURALEEDHARAN DR.ANIES GEORGE RESPONDENT/S: 1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (WORKS CONTRACT) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 018. 2 THE STATE TAX OFFICER(IB), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(INT.), STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM AT EDAPPALLY, KOCHI, PIN-682 024. 3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 015. 4 THE STATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM AT CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, PIN-682 030. GP. DR. THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2- WP(C).No.20292 of 2019 JUDGMENT The petitioner filed appeal in Ext.P2 aggrieved by the order of penalty in Ext.P1 made under Section 67 (1) of the KVAT Act. The petitioner has filed the appeal with a delay condonation petition 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
-3- WP(C).No.20292 of 2019 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 orders on delay petition and stay petition are passed expeditiously. Hence the writ petition.
Perused Exts.P1, P2, P4 and P3. Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to 3rd 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/ 3rd 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
-4- WP(C).No.20292 of 2019 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
-5- WP(C).No.20292 of 2019 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.04.2018. EXHIBIT P2OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.07.2019. EXHIBIT P3OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FOR STAY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.07.2019. EXHIBIT P4OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION TO CONDONE DELAY FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.07.2019. EXHIBIT P5OF R.R.NOTICE SERVED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 25.02.2019. 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.