General Electro Components vs. The State Tax Officer - Kerala High Court, 01 July 2022

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 39085 OF 2018 PETITIONER: M/s.GENERAL ELECTRO COMPONENTS, MAIN ROAD, PAYYANNUR REP.BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON/PROPRIETOR SRI.NOUFAL, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED KUNHI. BY ADV C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GOODS & SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR-670307. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) STATE GOODS & SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE-673001. 3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 4 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO.46, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. OTHER PRESENT: SMT. RESMITHA R. CHANDRAN - GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.39085 OF 2018 ..2..

J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging 101st Constitutional Amendment of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 stating that the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act,2003 can be enforced only until the expiry of one year from the date on which the nationwide goods and service tax was implemented or until the amendment was repealed by a competent Legislature and the petitioner further challenges Ext.P1 order under Sec.25(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003 for the assessment year 2013-14, passed by the first respondent stating that it is unconstitutional as it is ultra vires of the Constitution of India.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

The aforesaid challenge of 101st Constitutional Amendment of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 has been considered in Sheen Golden Jewels (India) Pvt.Ltd. v. State

Tax

Officer

(IB)-1,

Investigation

Branch, Thiruvananthapuram and others [2019 KHC 205] and decided against the petitioner. Hence, in view of the judgment in Sheen Golden Jewels (Supra) the petitioner is not entitled to get any W.P.(C)No.39085 OF 2018 ..3.. relief against the said challenge.

As far as Ext.P1 order is concerned, the petitioner has already filed Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 stay petition before the appellate authority. Hence, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the appellate authority to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 stay petition.

The writ petition is disposed of as follows: The second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders, if not already passed, on Ext.P3 stay petition after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No coercive steps shall be taken to recover the amount covered by Ext.P1 order for a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition, before the competent authority. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JUDGE MBS/

W.P.(C)No.39085 OF 2018 ..4.. APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39085/2018 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THEOF THE ORDER PASSED ON 29/10/2018. EXHIBIT P2 THEOF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 THEOF THE STAY APPLICATION. EXHIBIT P4 THEOF THE DEMAND NOTICE DT.29/10/2018.