Indian Furniture Products LTD. vs. The State Tax Officer - Kerala High Court, 27 January 2021

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 7TH MAGHA, 1942 WP(C).No.1988 OF 2021(W) PETITIONER: INDIAN FURNITURE PRODUCTS LTD. G-105, SIDCO INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KAKKALUR, TIRUVALLUR-602003, TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY MR N KRISHNAN-AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH JERARD SAMSON RODRIGUES RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER SQUAD NO.I, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES DEPARTMENT, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR-680004, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX SGST DEPARTMENT, KERALA, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682030. 3 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR-680004, THRISSUR DISTRICT. OTHER PRESENT: DR THUSHARA JAMES-GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.1988 OF 2021(W) 2

J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.P1 order of penalty and Ext.P2 demand notice on various grounds, but asserting that the petitioner has already preferred Ext.P3 appeal and Ext.P4 stay petition against the same before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Thrissur, namely the 3rd respondent. The petitioner says that the steps taken by the respondents to enforce Ext.P1 penalty order and Ext.P2 demand notice, pending consideration of the statutory appeal is illegal and therefore, prays that they be directed not to do so.

In response, Smt.Thushara

James, learned Government Pleader, affirmed that Exts.P3 and P4 are still pending before the 3rd respondent and submitted that necessary orders thereon will be issued by the said respondent at the earliest. She, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be ordered only to such effect.

When I consider the afore submissions, it is without doubt that the petitioner has approached this Court solely because his statutory appeal and the application for stay have WP(C).No.1988 OF 2021(W) 3 not been yet considered by the 3rd respondent.

I am, therefore, of the view that it will be justified for this Court to direct the 3rd respondent to dispose of the appeal itself within a time frame. In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the 3rd respondent to take up Ext.P3 appeal and dispose of the same within a period of two months; but, if for any reason, this is found not possible, then to take up Ext.P4 stay application and issue appropriate orders thereon within this time frame and communicate the resultant order to the petitioner, after affording him necessary opportunity of being heard. Needless to say, until such time as either of the afore exercise is completed, the proceedings for recovery of the amounts as mentioned in Exts.P1 and P2 will stand deferred. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN rp JUDGE

WP(C).No.1988 OF 2021(W) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE PENALTY ORDER NO. VCT/233/2017- 48(2013-14) DATED 31.05.2018, ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2OF THE NOTICE NO. A5-5312/19 DATED 09/01/2020, ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT, EXHIBIT P3OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 18/01/2021 FILED BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT, EXHIBIT P4OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY OF COLLECTION OF PENALTY DATED 18/01/2021, FILED BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT.