Jasmine Kochunni vs. The State Tax Officer-V
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023/24TH BHADRA, 1945 W.A.NO.1609 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.08.2023 IN WP(C).NO.24583/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: JASMINE KOCHUNNI AGED 46 YEARS, PROPRIETRIX, M/S.NEW KERALA TRADERS, METHALA, W/O.KOCHUNNI, RESIDING AT KAROTHUKUDY HOUSE, KANDANTHARA, ALLAPRA, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683556 BY ADV.SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER-V STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, FIRST CIRCLE, MINI CIVIL STATION, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683542 2 THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682015 3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, KERALA, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN – 686661 BY SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDEEN, SR. GOVT. PLEADER THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.NO.1609/2023 :: 2 :: J U D G M E N T Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. The appellant before us is the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.24583 of 2023, and she is aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.8.2023 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The appellant, who is a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, being aggrieved by an assessment order that confirmed a differential tax demand against her on the ground that she was not entitled to the concessional rate of tax against 'C' Forms, approached the Appellate Authority against the said assessment order. The appeal preferred by the appellant was however rejected by the First Appellate Authority and this led to the appellant approaching the Appellate Tribunal through a Second Appeal. In the stay application filed along with the appeal, while the appellant sought for a complete stay of recovery of the confirmed demand pending disposal of the appeal, the Appellate Tribunal granted only a conditional stay that required the appellant to pay 20% of the existing demand and to furnish a simple bond for the balance amount as a condition for the stay of recovery of the balance
W.A.NO.1609/2023 :: 3 :: amounts pending disposal of the Second Appeal. It was impugning the said conditional stay order that the appellant approached the learned Single Judge through the writ petition aforementioned.
The learned Single Judge, who considered the matter, found that there was no vitiating circumstances that warranted an interference with the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal. He however took note of the request of the learned counsel for the appellant for the grant of installments and, while dismissing the writ petition, permitted the appellant to pay the amounts directed to be paid by the Tribunal in three equal monthly installments commencing from 11.9.2023. 3. In the appeal before us, the learned counsel would submit that the financial position of the appellant is weak, and hence, some more installments are necessary to comply with the order of the Tribunal.
Taking note of the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and finding no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal that required the appellant to pay 20% of the disputed demand as a condition for grant of stay of recovery of the balance
W.A.NO.1609/2023 :: 4 :: amounts pending disposal of the Second Appeal, we merely modify the judgment of the learned Single Judge to increase the number of installments to six equated successive monthly installments instead of the three installments granted by the learned Single Judge. Save for this limited modification, we uphold the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the Writ Appeal. We make it clear that if the appellant pays the amount, directed to be paid by the Tribunal in the order impugned in the writ petition, in six equal and successive monthly installments commencing from 01.10.2023, then the said payment shall be treated as in compliance with the directions of the Tribunal in the order aforementioned, and the Tribunal shall thereafter proceed to hear the appeal on merits. The Writ Appeal is dismissed. DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE
prp/15/9/23
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.