Sai Export Enterprises vs. The Assistant Commissionerassessment)
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an assessee on the rolls of the 1st respondent. The assessments of the petitioner for the years 2014-15(VAT), 2015-16(VAT) & 2015-16(CST) had been completed by the 1st respondent by separate orders as per Exts.P-1, P-1(a) & P-1(b) orders respectively. The petitioner had challenged the above orders before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), who has partially modified the assessments for the years 2014-15(VAT) & 2015-16(VAT) and rejected the appeal for the year 2015-16(CST) by separate orders as per Exts.P-2, P-2(a) & P-2(b) respectively. Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner has filed second appeals before the 2nd respondent as per Exts.P-3, P-3(a) & P-3(b) with stay applications as per Exts.P-4, P-4(a) & P-4(b). The petitioner's grievance is that during the pendency of the stay petitions, coercive recovery proceedings have been initiated by the assessing authority for recovery of the disputed amounts.
Heard Sri.Harisankar V.Menon, learned counsel ..3.. 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 Exts.P-4, P-4(a) & P-4(b) stay applications filed in Exts.P-3, P-3(a) & P-3(b) appeals 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 six weeks 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 the impugned order will be kept in abeyance. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of. ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE MMG ..4.. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 EXHIBIT P1(a) COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 EXHIBIT P1(b) COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 (CST) EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) KOLLAM FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 EXHIBIT P2(a) COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE DY. COMMISSIOENR (APPEALS) KOLLAM FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 EXHIBIT P2(b) COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) KOLLAM FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 (CST) EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3(a) COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3(b) COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4(a) COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4(b) COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.