A.K.Mohammed Fowzeer vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges an order of conditional stay issued by the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, copy of which is produced as Ext.P8. 2. Petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act 1963. For the assessment year 2011-12, petitioner was issued with an assessment order dated 03/02/2020. Challenging the said assessment order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, a second appeal has been preferred before the Tribunal. Pending consideration of the appeal, the Tribunal issued an order of stay directing the petitioner to deposit 30% of the disputed demand and also on furnishing a security bond in Form-6A for the balance amount, within one month from the date of WP(C) NO. 5291 OF 2022 3 receipt of a copy of the order. The aforesaid order of stay issued by the Tribunal is impugned in this writ petition.
I have heard Sri.N.Muraleedharan Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Dr.Thushara James, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.
Petitioner contended that the amount directed to be deposited by the Tribunal is too onerous and causes prejudice apart from the impugned order not being a speaking order.
The learned Senior Government Pleader on the other hand contended that the discretion exercised by the Tribunal is not to be interfered with in exercise of the extra-ordinary juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially, since the amount directed to be deposited for the grant of stay was not substantial, considering the total amount involved. It was also submitted that, this Court had, on earlier occasions
WP(C) NO. 5291 OF 2022 4 declined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Tribunal for granting an order of stay.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. On a perusal of the order impugned in this writ petition, it is evident that the Tribunal granted a stay of the recovery proceedings against the petitioner on condition of deposit of 30% of the disputed demand. A reason, however, brief it may be, has also been mentioned by the Tribunal for imposing such a condition. On a consideration of the amount involved in the appeal, I am of the view that the direction to deposit 30% does not cause prejudice, since the amount is not substantial in nature. Hence I find no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Tribunal.
However, as far as the direction to deposit the amount within one month is concerned, I am of the view that having regard to the circumstances prevailing now, a breathing time can be granted to the petitioner to deposit the amount in ‘3’ equated monthly instalments. Hence the WP(C) NO. 5291 OF 2022 5 petitioner shall deposit the 30% directed in the order impugned in ‘5’ equated monthly instalments commencing from 15/03/2022. The time stipulated in the impugned order to deposit the amount and furnish security within one month shall stand extended by five months from 15/03/2022. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJM
WP(C) NO. 5291 OF 2022 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5291/2022 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS : Exhibit P1OF THE MODIFIED ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 03/02/2020. Exhibit P2OF THE 1ST APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), KOZHIKODE, FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 20/08/2020. Exhibit P3OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 03/12/2020. Exhibit P4OF THE ADVANCE HEARING PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 03/12/2020. Exhibit P5OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 03/12/2020. Exhibit P6OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.22539 OF 2021 DATED 22/10/2021. Exhibit P7OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE FILED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30/11/2021. Exhibit P8OF THE STAY ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22/12/2021. Exhibit P9OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 12/08/2021 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. AJM //// PA TO JUDGE
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.