K.T. Manoj Kumar vs. The State Tax Officer (Investigation Branch) - Kerala High Court, 13 August 2021

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 16680 OF 2021 PETITIONER: K.T. MANOJ KUMAR, PROPRIETOR, M/S. GAYATHRI GRAND, OPP. GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, CHERPULASSERY, PALAKKAD. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER (INVESTIGATION BRANCH), STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD-678 001 2 THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 032, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. SECRETARY. SR G.P – SMT.THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 16680 OF 2021 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that, in spite of the fact he has preferred Ext.P3 appeal and Ext.P4 stay petition before the second respondent - Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), the first respondent is now taking hasty steps for recovery, based on Ext.P1 assessment.

The learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt.Thushara James, submitted that if the petitioner only requires Ext.P4 stay petition to be considered by the Tribunal, she will not stand in the way; but prayed that this Court may fix a very short time frame.

Taking note of the afore submissions and since I am of the view that it will be unjust for any recovery to be taken forward when Ext.P4 stay petition is still pending before the Tribunal, I deem it appropriate to allow this writ petition to that extent.

Resultantly, this writ petition is ordered directing the second respondent - Tribunal to take up Ext.P4 stay petition of the petitioner and dispose it of, after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to him, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than two months from the date of WP(C) NO. 16680 OF 2021 3 receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, until such time as the afore exercise is completed and the Tribunal communicates the order to the petitioner, all action for recovery based on Ext.P1 shall be deferred by the first respondent. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE STU

WP(C) NO. 16680 OF 2021 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16680/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13. Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) -I, KOZHIKODE. Exhibit P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13. Exhibit P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.