Hotel Joance Regency vs. The State Tax Officer - Kerala High Court, 05 November 2021

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 24234 OF 2021 PETITIONER: HOTEL JOANCE REGENCY NEAR K.S.R.T.C BUS STAND, THODUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI JILMON JOHN BY ADVS. AJI V.DEV ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV S.SAJEEVAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER SECOND CIRCLE, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, MINI CIVIL STATION, THOUDUPUZHA 685 584 2 THE STATE TAX OFFICER(INTELLIGENCE) SQUAD NO. II, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, DEPARTMENT, MINI CIVIL STATION, THODUPUZHA 685 584 3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, TAX COMPLEX, IDUKKI AT KATTAPPANA 685 508 4 THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES TAX TOWER, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 002 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 1 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J --------------------------- WP(C) No. 24234 of 2021 ----------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November, 2021

JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging assessment order issued by the first respondent under Section 17B of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act').

Petitioner is conducting a Bar attached hotel and is a registered dealer under the Act. Petitioner alleges that the assessment was based upon an order of penalty which has now been stayed by this Court.

Adv. Aji V. Dev, the learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that since the assessment is based upon the order of penalty which remains stayed by this Court, the entire assessment is perverse and ought not to have been carried out by the Assessing Officer.

On a consideration of the impugned order, I find that petitioner has an effective remedy of appeal under the statutory provisions. There is no reason or cause to overcome

2 the statutory prescriptions. All the contentions raised before this Court can be raised and contended before the appellate authority and hence, this Court does not consider this case to be fit for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed reserving the liberty of the petitioner to pursue its statutory remedies. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJ/05.11.2021

3 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24234/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 AOF THE SHOP INSPECTION REPORT NO. 209289 DATED 13-03-2020 Exhibit P2 AOF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR 2019-2020 DATED 24-08-2020 PROPOSING PENALTY Exhibit P3 AOF THE REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 17-09-2020 Exhibit P4 AOF THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED FOR 2019-2020 DATED 22-09-2020 (WPC NO. 10226/2009 DATED 03-07-2013 Exhibit P7 AOF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. 21608 OF 2020 DATED 13-10-2020 Exhibit P8 AOF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 04-02-2021 Exhibit P9 AOF THE LETTER FILED SEEKING ADJOURNMENT DATED 09-02-2021 Exhibit P10 AOF THE NOTICE PROPOSING ASSESSMENT FOR THE FY 2019-2020 DATED 09-08- 2021 Exhibit P11 AOF THE REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 16-08-2021 Exhibit P12 AOF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED FOR THE YEAR 2019-2020 DATED 04-10-2021