M/S. Daikin Air Conditioning INDIA PVT.LTD. vs. The Assistant State Tax Officer
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI MONDAY ,THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1941 WP(C).No. 8998 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: 1 M/S. DAIKIN AIR CONDITIONING INDIA PVT.LTD. ISANA,KATTIMA (MEGA MART BUILDING) DOOR NO497 AND 498,6TH FLOOR, POONAMALLE HIGH ROAD, ARUMBAKKAM CHENNAI-600 106, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANGER,S.VENU NAGARAJ, AGED 37,S/O. V.SUKUMARAN 2 RUBY DANIEL,AGED 52 YEARS, D/O.K.C.DANIEL PROPRIETOR,M/S. ARIA FRESCA SYSTEM HVAC ENGINEERS AISWARYA LANE, THAMMANAM P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 032 BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER SURVEILLANCE SQUAD NO.I, STATE GST DEPARTMENT KOLLAM-691 001 2 THE STATE TAX OFFICER,SQUAD NO.I STATE GST DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM-691 002 3 THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE GST TAX TOWERS, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002 4 STANDARD CHARTED BANK LTD. TRADE SERVICES-NEW DELHI,2ND FLOOR, DLF BUILDING NO.7A,DLF CYBER CITY, SECTOR-23/24/25A, GURGAON-122 002, REPRESENTED BY IS OFFICER TRADE SERVICES GP DR. THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 8998 of 2019 2 JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
The petitioners challenge Ext.P11 order dated 01.03.2019 as illegal and that the 1st respondent failed to consider the documents placed on record by the petitioners before the assessment order impugned in the writ petition is made. The alternative submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner in fact has statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act and one of the reasons why the petitioner is compelled to invoke extraordinary juri iction of this Court is that the 1st respondent confirmed invocation of bank guarantee there by facilitating encashment of the bank guarantee even before the period available for filing appeal is over.
The learned Government Pleader objects to the maintainability of writ petition primarily on the ground that the explanation now offered by the petitioner cannot be treated as axiomatic and proceed to consider the infirmity in the finding recorded by the 1st respondent. Assuming without admitting that explanation is available for either delayed filing of documents or otherwise, the explanation is matter
WP(C).No. 8998 of 2019 3 of record and requires to be verified by the competent authority. Therefore, it is contended that the writ petition is not maintainable. The counsel opposes the writ petition and prays for dismissing the writ petition on the alternative submission of petitioner, she fairly states that invocation of bank guarantee even before the expiry of period of appeal can be deferred by passing appropriate orders by this Court and thereafter the petitioner gets necessary orders from the appellate authority. The rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties are taken note. The writ petition is disposed of by relegating the petitioner to work out the remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act. The respondents are directed not to encash the bank guarantee for a period of 90 days from today and it is open to the petitioner to obtain orders as may be necessary in this behalf after the appeal and the stay petition are moved before the appellate authority. The stay petition if is filed, the petition is considered and disposed of before the expiry of three months period granted by this Court. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE WP(C).No. 8998 of 2019 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF PURCHASE ORDER NO.423 ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF PURCHASE ORDER NO.423A ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF INVOICE NO.1833013009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF INVOICE NO.1833013009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF E-WAY BILL GENERATE BY THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FORM MOV 01 EXHIBIT P4 A COPY OF PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FORM MOV 02 EXHIBIT P4 B COPY OF PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FORM MOV 04 EXHIBIT P4 C COPY OF PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FORM MOV 06 EXHIBIT P4 D COPY OF PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FORM MOV 07 EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE DY.COMMISSIONER (INT) SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE ETHE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF BANK GUARANTEE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BANK EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE HE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND 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.