Chakkanattu Agencies vs. The State Tax Officer - Kerala High Court, 27 January 2020

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 7TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.2111 OF 2020(L) PETITIONER: CHAKKANATTU AGENCIES, VI/302,303, TRIPUNITHURA ROAD, MARADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682 304, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER C.L ANTONY. BY ADVS. SRI.R.MURALEEDHARAN DR.ANIES GEORGE RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, 1ST CIRCLE, TRIPUNITHURA, PIN 682 301 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM PIN 682 015 3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIOENR OF STATE TAX, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM, AT CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI, PIN 682 030 OTHER PRESENT: SMT.THUSHARA JAMES, GOVT.PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.2111/2020 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.2111 of 2020 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2020

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P3 stay petition. The petitioner's grievance is that during the pendency of the stay petition, coercive recovery proceedings have been initiated by the assessing authority for recovery of the disputed amounts.

Heard Sri.R. Muraleedharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Thushara James, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

After hearing both sides and after taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the 2nd respondent shall take up the matters in Ext.P3 stay application filed in Ext.P-2 appeal and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through their authorised representative/ counsel, if any, shall pass orders on those applications without much delay, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Until orders are thus passed on the abovesaid stay application, further coercive steps for enforcement of revenue recovery under Ext.P4 impugned demand notice will be kept in abeyance. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of. ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE. acd APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE AWARD DATED 22/12/18 IN OP (MV) NO.395/12 OF THE HON'BLE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P2OF NOTICE RRC 2019/10221/08 DATED 30/11/2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10/01/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 21-10-2019 EXHIBIT P2OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT.P1 RDER DT 30-10-2019 EXHIBIT P3OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30-10-2019 ALONG WITH EXT.P-2 APPEAL EXHIBIT P4OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED UNDER R.R ACT, BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 07-01-2020