Molly Jose vs. The State Tax Officer (Int) - Kerala High Court, 20 September 2021

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 29TH BHADRA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 19525 OF 2021 PETITIONER/S: MOLLY JOSE AGED 59 YEARS PROPRIETRIX, M/S.AUTO GRAND, POOTHOLE ROAD, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER (INT) MOBILE SQUAD NO.II, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT,THRISSUR - 680004. 2 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR - 680 004. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CASE NO: WP(C) No. 19525 of 2021 2 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ---------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 19525 of 2021 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of September, 2021

JUDGMENT Petitioner was an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act 2013. For the assessment year 2016-17, petitioner was saddled with a penalty of Rs.12,59,382/- by Ext. P1 order. Challenging the order of penalty, petitioner has preferred an appeal to the second respondent. A copy of the memorandum of appeal is produced as Ext. P2. The appeal is still pending consideration. Petitioner has preferred a stay petition as Ext.P3 in the pending appeal, seeking for a stay of recovery of the amounts imposed as per Ext. P1. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that while the appeal is pending consideration, respondents are initiating steps to recover the amount imposed as per the order impugned and that petitioner will be subjected to irreparable hardships if the coercive steps are proceeded with. Petitioner seeks for a direction to consider the appeal as well as the stay petition in a time-bound manner.

I have heard by Adv. Harishankar V. Menon, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned senior Government Pleader Dr.Thushara James on behalf of the respondents.

Having regard to the circumstances arising in the case as well as the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as above, I am of the view that this writ petition itself can be disposed of directing the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the stay petition filed in the pending appeal.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P3 stay petition filed by the petitioner in the pending appeal, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such a decision as directed above is taken, all proceedings for recovery of the amount imposed as per the order impugned in the appeal shall be kept in abeyance. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE ANB APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19525/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17. Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 COPY OF EARLY HEARING PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 COPY OF POSTING NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.