Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2018 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1940
WP(C).No. 21917 of 2018
------------------------
PETITIONER:
----------
MEGHA MARKETING,
BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM-691001,
REPRESENTED BY IS PROPRIETOR,
MR. JOSEPH SEBASTIAN.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.P.GOPINATH
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SMT.ANN MARIA FRANCIS
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (TAXES),
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE STATE TAX OFFICER,
FIRST CIRCLE, KERALA STATE
GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT,
KOLLAM-691001.
3. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
CPGP LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHAMSUDHEEN V.K.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 02-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 21917 of 2018 (L)
--------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
---------------------
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.32020652676/13-14
DATED 20.2.2015 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.2.2018 PASSED
BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)-II, KERALA
STATE GST DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 05.06.2018 FILED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY
DATED 05.06.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
NIL
---------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
mbr/
05.07.2018.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.21917 of 2018
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd 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 2nd respondent, questioned Ext.P1 penalty order before the 3rd 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. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authority to defer taking coercive steps until the 3rd respondent considers the stay petition. I also further hope that W.P.(C)No.21917 of 2018 2 the 3rd respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE
