M/S.Agreen Co Fibre Foam(P) LTD vs. Assistant Commissioner(Kvat)
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
RESPECT OF EXHIBIT P1 ASSESSMENT ORDER. EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 2.02.17 IN RESPECT OF EXHIBIT P2 ASSESSMENT ORDER. EXHIBIT P5. COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL AS AGAINST EXHIBIT P3 ORDER. EXHIBIT P6. COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE APPEALLATE
TRIBUNAL AS AGAINST EXHIBTI P4 ORDER. EXHIBIT P7. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT WITH STAY PETITION FILED
ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P5 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P8. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT WITH STAY PETITION FILED
ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P6 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P9. COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DATED 27.2.18 IN EXHIBIT P7
STAY PETITION. EXHIBIT P10. COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DATED 27.2.18 IN EXHIBIT P8
STAY PETITION. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL // P.A TO JUDGE LSN
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April, 2018 JUDGMENT Petitioner was a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act as also the Central Sales Tax Act. Exts.P1 & P2 are the assessment orders of the petitioner under the said statutes for the year 2009-’10. Aggrieved by Exts.P1 and P2 orders, the petitioner though preferred appeals, the same were dismissed. Exts.P3 and P4 are the appellate orders . Aggrieved by Exts.P3 and P4 orders, the petitioner preferred Exts.P5 and P6 appeals before the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal along with Exts.P7 and P8 petitions for stay. Exts.P7 and P8 applications for stay now stand disposed of in terms of Exts.P9 and P10 orders granting the stay sought for by the petitioner on condition that they shall remit 30% of the disputed tax and furnish security for the balance amount. Exts.P9 and P10 orders are under challenge in the writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in so far as the Tribunal has stayed the operation of the impugned orders substantially, this Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Having been confronted with that situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for indulgence to pay 30% of the amount directed to be remitted in terms of the impugned orders, in instalments. On an evaluation of the materials on record, I am of the view that the said plea of the petitioner is reasonable and the writ petition, therefore, can be disposed of permitting the petitioner to pay the amounts covered by the impugned orders in four equal monthly instalments commencing from 02.05.2018. Ordered accordingly.
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE sp/04/11/18
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.