M/S. Auro Food PVT. LTD vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of State Tax - Kerala High Court, 07 February 2018

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 18TH MAGHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 4092 of 2018 PETITIONER M/S. AURO FOOD PVT. LTD C/O.GURUVAYURAPPAN AGENCIES, 1/800A, KIZHAKKANCHERRY KAVU, 5TH MILE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NILESH B.PATEL. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1. THE ASST. 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 SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. TRIPLICANE BRANCH, CHENNAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 4. INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS & SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD-678 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER:SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN BY SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 4092 of 2018 (J) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1: COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 23.09.2017. EXHIBIT-P2: COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 03.02.2018. EXHIBIT-P3: COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 05.02.2018. EXHIBIT-P4: COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 05.02.2018. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE rsr P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.4092 of 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of February, 2018

J U D G M E N T

Challenging Ext.P1 assessment order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the second respondent. The appeal, in fact, was filed by the petitioner out of time. As such, he has preferred Ext.P3 application to condone the delay in filing the appeal also. Ext.P4 is the application preferred by the petitioner in the appeal for stay. It is stated that proceedings have already been initiated for realisation of the amounts covered by the order impugned in the appeal. The grievance of the petitioner, in the circumstances, concerns the delay in disposing of the appeal.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

W.P.(c).No.4092 of 2018 : 2 :

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the appellate authority to consider the application preferred by the petitioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Ordered accordingly. This shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Needless to say that if the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, the appellate authority shall pass orders on the application for stay preferred by the petitioner also, within the aforesaid time limit. Needless also to say that further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by the order impugned in the appeal shall be deferred by the respondents concerned till orders are passed on the application to condone the delay in filing the appeal, or if the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, till orders are passed on the application for stay. P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE rsr