M/S. Kairali Steels & Alloys PVT. LTD. vs. The Assistant Commisioner Of State Tax - Kerala High Court, 17 July 2018

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1940 WP(C).No.23788 of 2018 PETITIONER: ---------- M/S.KAIRALI STEELS & ALLOYS PVT.LTD. KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.ABDUL GAFOOR BY ADVS.SRI.K.SRIKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX STATE GST DEPARTMENT, SPECIAL CIRCLE, PALAKKAD - 678 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD - 678 001 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD - 678 001 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23788 of 2018 (W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ---------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 13.11.2017 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 06.12.2017 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 06.12.2017 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.05.2018 IN WP(C).NO.15981/2018 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.IA.NO.79/2018 IN KVATA NO.483/2017 DATED 12.06.2018 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ---------------------- NIL //True Copy// P.A. To Judge Bb DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23788 of 2018 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of July, 2018.

JUDGMENT The petitioner, a dealer under the KVAT Act, faces assessment proceedings. The disputed turn over is over Rs.25 Crores and the disputed Tax is over Rs.1 Crore. In the appeal, the second respondent has initially passed an order, imposing a condition that the petitioner should deposit 20%, so that the Appellate Tribunal could entertain the appeal. The petitioner challenged that order in W.P.(C).No.15981/2018. 2. This Court, through Ext.P4 judgment, disposed of the Writ Petition, remanding the matter, besides setting aside the conditional order passed by the second respondent. The Court relied on the decision in Archana Agencies v Commercial Tax Officer reported in [2014 (2) KLT 715] and W.P.(C) No.23788 of 2018 -2- held that even conditional interim order should contain reasons. Accordingly, the second respondent passed Ext.P5 order, which seems to be a detailed one.

The petitioner's counsel has urged many grounds and has eventually contended that the amount required to be paid to comply with the condition is huge and that the Court may grant some more time for the petitioner to comply with Ext.P5 order.

The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, has stoutly defended Ext.P5 order. At any rate, the petitioner only seeks time to comply with Ext.P5. It is equitable to provide him one month maximum from today to comply with the interim direction. With these observations, I dispose of this Writ Petition. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE Bb/17/7/2018 []

P.A to Judge