Vismaya Distributors vs. The Commercial Tax Officer
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE THUR AY, THE 06TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1941 WP(C).No.11703 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: VISMAYA DISTRIBUTORS, MECHERY TOWER, SOUTH CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR - 680 307, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.GIRISH NAIR. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MINI CIVIL STATION, CHALAKKUDY - 680 307. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), STATE GST DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR - 680 004. 3 THE SECRETARY, KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COMMERCIAL TAX COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM - 682 015. 4 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR - 680 020. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.M.M.JASMINE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.11703/2019 2
JUDGMENT The petitioner, impugning a conditional stay order passed by the Tribunal, has approached this Court. I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order. However, this Court while considering the matter on 11.4.2019 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/-. The petitioner submits that they have paid the amount.
The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a Circular No.6/2019 issued by the Commissioner of State Goods and Services Tax Department and submitted that as per the said Circular the petitioner's liability would be drastically reduced. According to the petitioner, based on the circular, the maximum amount they would be liable is Rs.50,000/-. Since the Tribunal had no occasion to consider this Circular, it is appropriate to order the Tribunal to reconsider the stay application after adverting to Circular No.6/2019. Appropriate orders shall
WP(C).No.11703/2019 3
be passed within one month. In view of the payment of Rs.75,000/-, no coercive steps shall be taken till the Tribunal reconsiders the matter afresh on the application for stay. To pave way for reconsideration of the stay application as above, the impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is disposed of as above. A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE ln
WP(C).No.11703/2019 4
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 13.11.2015 FOR THE YEAR 2011-12. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER DATED 21.04.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT.P1. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 28.07.2018 AGAINST EXT.P2. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF DELAY CONDONATION PETITION DATED 28.07.2018 IN EXT.P3. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 28.07.2018 IN EXT.P3. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 07.01.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF STAY ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 06.02.2019. EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FOR MODIFICATION OF STAY CONDITION FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 08.04.2019. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL. //// P.A.TO JUDGE
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.