BharatTaxGST

Ali Bangle Store vs. State Tax Officer

Original PDF →
WP(C)/103/2019HC KeralaGSTCNR KLHC01000349201904 January 2019Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU3 pages
For Petitioner: SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN, SRI.V.JAYANANDAKUMAR

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU FRIDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 14TH POUSHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 103 of 2019 PETITIONER: ALI BANGLE STORE,TC 38/1713, CHANDRA PRESS COMPOUND, CHALAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN CODE - 695 523, REPRESENTED BY PARNTER MANSOOR. BY ADVS. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN SRI.V.JAYANANDAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE TAX OFFICER 1ST CIRCLE, STATE GST DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 002. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) STATE GST DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN - 695 002. 3 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 002. 4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY (TAXES) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. DR THUSHARA JAMES, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 103 of 2019 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('KVAT Act') on the rolls of the 1st respondent, questioned the Exts.P1 to P3 assessment orders, before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has also filed stay petitions in the appeals. Ventilating its grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

3.

I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time its statutory remedy of filing an appeal. It appears that it has also filed stay petitions. Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 2nd respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the 2nd respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

WP(C).No. 103 of 2019 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32010673432/2013-14 DATED 29/9/2018 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32010673432/14-15 DATED 29/9/2018 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32010673432/15-16 DATED 29/9/2018 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16. EXHIBIT P4 FILED AGAINST P1 ORDER BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 12/11/2018 FILED IN P1 APPEAL BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 FILED AGAINST P2 ORDER BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 12/11/2018 FILED IN P6 APPEAL BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 FILED AGAINST P3 ORDER BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 12/11/2018 FILED IN P8 APPEAL BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.A3/3767/2018 DATED 3/12/2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. 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.