M/S.Kalyan vs. State Tax Officer - Kerala High Court, 11 February 2020

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

WP(C).No.3475 OF 2020(H) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 22ND MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.3475 OF 2020(H) PETITIONER/S: M/S.KALYAN, PETER ENGLAND SHOW ROOM, TC NO.25/430 TO 432, ROUND WEST, THRISSUR-680001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SRI.T.V.KALAYANARAMAN. BY ADV. SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, SQUAD NO.1, PUTHOLE, THRISSUR-680004. 2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX COMPLEX, PUTHOLE, THRISSUR-680004. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.M.M.JASMINE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.3475 OF 2020(H) 2

JUDGMENT As against Ext.P3 order for the assessment year 2013-14 under the Kerala value Added Tax Act, petitioner preferred Ext.P4 appeal along with the stay application. The case of the petitioner is that, the 2nd 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.

Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the appellate authority to consider the application of stay within a period

WP(C).No.3475 OF 2020(H) 3 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. Steps for recovery of amounts pertaining to Ext.P3 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 JUDGE JM/

WP(C).No.3475 OF 2020(H) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF JUDGMENT DATED 26.02.2014 IN WP(C)NO.5426 OF 2014 PASSED THIS HON'BLE COURT, IN DIRECTING TO FURNISH SIMPLE BOND JOINTLY BY THE PRINCIPAL, A REGISTERED DEALER UNDER THE KVAT ACT. EXHIBIT P2OF SIMPLE BOND IN FORM NO.6 FURNISHED FOR RELEASE OF DETAINED GOODS, IN COMPLIANCE TO EXT.P1 JUDGMENT. EXHIBIT P3OF PENALTY IMPOSED U/S.47(6) TO THE KVAT ACT 2003, COMPLETED FOR 2013-14 BY 1ST RESPONDENT, WITHOUT HEARING THE REGISTERED DEALER. EXHIBIT P4OF APPEAL DATED 29.01.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT.P3 PENALTY IMPOSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT, FOR 2013-14. EXHIBIT P5OF STAY PETITION DATED 29.01.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH EXT.P4 APPEAL.