BharatTaxGST

M/S. Beml LTD vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Taxes

Original PDF →
WP(C)/24457/2018HC KeralaGSTCNR KLHC01056044201820 July 20184 pages

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 20TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 24457 of 2018 (F) PETITIONER: M/S. BEML LTD, KINFRA PARK, KANJIKODE EAST P.O, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. GEN. MANAGER-FINANCE, SHASHI KANT PATHAK. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD 678 001. 2. DY. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD 678 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER DR.THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-07- 2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24457 of 2018 (F) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11(CST) EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11(CST) EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11(CST) RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL OKB TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J --------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.24457 of 2018 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July, 2018

JUDGMENT The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('KVAT Act') on the rolls of the 1st respondent, questioned Ext.P1 penalty order before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has also filed a stay petition along with the appeal. Ventilating his 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 his statutory remedy of filing an appeal. It appears that he has also filed a stay petition. Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition.

4.

Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 2nd

W.P(C).24457/18 :2: respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the 2nd respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU Judge okb. //// 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.