B3 Macbics Limited No.414 vs. The State Tax Officer - Kerala High Court, 17 March 2020

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.8185 OF 2020(W) PETITIONER/S: B3 MACBICS LIMITED NO.414, NH BYE PASS ROAD, NEAR TOLL GATE, KUMBALAM, ERNAKULAM-682506, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ARUN MADHUSUDANAN, BY ADV. SMT.M.K.HAJARA RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, TRIPUNITHURA-682030. 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES - S.G.S.T. DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM-682013. OTHER PRESENT: GP DR THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.8185 OF 2020(W) 2

JUDGMENT As against Ext.P1 order for the assessment year 2013-14 under the Kerala value Added Tax Act, petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 stay application and Ext.P4 delay condonation application before the 2nd respondent. The case of the petitioner is that, the 1st respondent is proceeding further with the revenue recovery prior to considering the stay petition, which impelled the petitioner to approach this Court.

This Court in W.P.(C) No.3800/2020 had passed a detailed order after having called the Assistant Commissioner of Law in court with regard to the numbering of appeal and hearing of the stay application. Several writ petitions are pending in this Court seeking redressal of grievance for non-hearing of the appeal, along with stay applications.

This writ petition is also of the similar nature and the petitioner is in dilemma. In such circumstances, this Court cannot sit as a mute spectator without coming to the rescue of such litigants.

WP(C).No.8185 OF 2020(W) 3 4. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: i) Taking note of the fact that the delay in approaching the 2nd respondent is 26 days, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay and direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass reasoned orders on Ext.P3 stay petition within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, as the petitioner in such circumstances had not opted for automatic stay in view of the amended provisions of Section 55 (4) of KVAT Act, 2003. ii) Steps for recovery of amounts pertaining to Ext.P5 shall be kept in abeyance, till such time the stay application is disposed of. It is made clear that the interim arrangement is only till the adjudication of the stay application. However, this will not stand in the way of the appellate authority deciding the appeal along with the stay application. AMIT RAWAL sab JUDGE

WP(C).No.8185 OF 2020(W) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER THE KVAT ACT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATED 30.12.2019. EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE APPEAL DATED 09.03.2020 (FILED DATED 13.03.2020) AGAINST EXT.P1. EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE STAY PETITION FILED ALONG WITH P.2 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION FILED ALONG WITH P.2 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P5 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 30.12.2019.