Siby Thomas vs. State Of Kerala - Kerala High Court, 16 August 2022

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 25TH SRAVANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 26260 OF 2022 PETITIONER: SIBY THOMAS AGED 39 YEARS S/O. THOMAS, AREEPLACKAL HOUSE, ELLUMPURAM KARA, MUTTOM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685581 BY ADV. LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 2 COMMISSIONER OF STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT OPP. MUSEUM, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033. 3 JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI - 685508. 4 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI - 685 508. BY ADV. P.S.APPU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.26260 OF 2022 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 16th day of August, 2022

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P12 order passed in an appeal filed by him against Ext.P8 proceedings of the 4th respondent. The impugned order was passed, pursuant to the direction in Ext.P10 judgment of this Court.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate authority has completely misconstrued the provisions of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958, and even the factual findings in the impugned order are faulty. It is submitted that the interim application having been dismissed on merits, no purpose will be served by the same authority considering the appeal.

Learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner cannot simultaneously proceed with the appeal and challenge an interim order therein.

In my considered opinion, merely because the appellate authority passed Ext.P12 order in the WP(C) NO.26260 OF 2022 3 interim application filed by the petitioner, there cannot be an inference that the appeal will not be considered on its merits. The writ petition is hence disposed of, directing the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P9 appeal and pass a reasoned order thereon within two weeks, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The shorter time limit of two weeks is stipulated since Ext.P8 order has resulted in the petitioner’s business being closed down. V.G.ARUN JUDGE NB/16-8

WP(C) NO.26260 OF 2022 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26260/2022 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 22.04.2015. EXHIBIT P2OF THE RENEWED LICENCE OF THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 20.04.2022. EXHIBIT P3OF THE NOTICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 10.02.2022 EXHIBIT P4OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 10.03.2022. EXHIBIT P4 A LEGIBLE COPY OF EXT.P4 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE EXHIBIT P5OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER DATED 23.03.2022. EXHIBIT P6OF THE NOTICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 31.03.2022 EXHIBIT P7OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF BOOK NO.8, PAGE NO.32 MAINTAINED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P8OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 22.04.2022 EXHIBIT P9OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P10OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 26.07.2022 IN W.P. (C) NO.23486/2022. EXHIBIT P11OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXT.P9 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P12OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 01.08.2022. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NILP.A. TO JUDGE