Beauty Mark Gold vs. State Tax Officer - Kerala High Court, 03 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 3RD DAY OF JULY 2018 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 21909 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) BEAUTY MARK GOLD (P) LIMITED BYEPASS ROAD, KONDOTTY-673 638 REPRESENTED BY IBRAHIMKUTTY PALASSARI, MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): 1. STATE TAX OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF GST, MANJERI:676 121. 2. THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CALICUT-673032. R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. M. JASMINE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21909 of 2018 (K) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 7.2.2015 FOR THE YEAR 2011-12. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER DATED 31.5.2017 FOR THE YEAR 2011-12. EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE SECOND RESPONDENT ON 12.7.2017. EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE SECOND RESPONDENT ON 26.6.2018. EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF PRE ASSESSMENT NOTICE DATED 7.6.2018. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE das DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. ============================================== W.P.(C). No. 21909 of 2018 (K) ======================================================= Dated this the 3rd 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 assessment 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.

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

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

-2- W.P.(C). No. 21909 of 2018(K) further steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authority to defer taking coercive steps until the 2nd respondent considers the stay petition. I also further hope that the 2nd respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE das 03.07.2018