Trivandrum Godrej Agency vs. The State Tax Officer - Kerala High Court, 05 December 2019

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941 WP(C).No.33013 OF 2019(B) PETITIONER M/S.TRIVANDRUM GODREJ AGENCY, VELUTHEDATH THAZHAM, PP HOUSE, KOMMERI, KOZHIKKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, BASHEER.T. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, NEYYATTINKARA -695 121. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002. 3 THE ASST.COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, NEYYATTINKARA-695 121. OTHER PRESENT: GP DR. THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).33013/2019 2

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, for the assessment year 2015-16, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal together with Ext.P3 delay condonation petition and Ext.P4 stay petition before the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that even prior to considering the stay petition, recovery steps are taken by the respondents against the petitioner for recovery of the amounts confirmed by Ext.P1 assessment order.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Taking note of the fact that the delay occassioned in filing the appeal is negligible, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay, and dispose the writ petition, by directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass reasoned orders on Ext.P4 stay petition within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Recovery steps, pursuant to Ext P5 demand notice, shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 2nd respondent, for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Mrcs/5. 12. APPENDIX EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 2015-16. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF NOTICE IN FORM NO.1 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.