Sherin Hifab Contracts INDIA PVT. LTD vs. The Intelligence Officer (Ib) - Kerala High Court, 02 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 MONDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941 WP(C).No.32581 OF 2019(W) PETITIONER: SHERIN HIFAB CONTRACTS INDIA PVT. LTD V/830D, IDA, EDAYAR, MUPPATHADOM P.O., KOCHI-683110. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR PRINCE VARGHESE. BY ADVS. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.M.RAJAGOPAL SHRI.RAHUL A. RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (I.B) COMMERCIAL TAXES, MATTANCHERRY AT ALUVA-682 002. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 015. 3 THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL THEVARA, KOCHI-682 015 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, KAKKANAD, KOCHI, PIN-682 030. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.32581 OF 2019(W) 2

JUDGMENT The challenge in the Writ Petition is against Ext.P5 order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in a stay application filed along with an appeal against an order confirming penalty on the petitioner under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. Although various reasons are stated in the Writ Petition in its challenge against Ext.P5 conditional order, I find that the said order is a reasoned one, and further, does not suffer from any juri ictional error warranting an interference with the same in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I, therefore, reject the challenge in the Writ Petition against Ext.P5 conditional order of stay passed by the Tribunal. Taking note of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the period granted in Ext.P5 order for payment of 30% of the penalty amount has since expired, I direct that if the petitioner complies with the conditions in Ext.P5 order within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, then the said payment shall be treated as in compliance with Ext.P5 order of the Tribunal. Save for this limited modification, the Writ Petition in WP(C).No.32581 OF 2019(W) 3 its challenge against Ext.P5 order is otherwise dismissed. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment, before the respondents, for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE mns

WP(C).No.32581 OF 2019(W) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF PENALTY ORDER DATED 6.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17. EXHIBIT P1 A COY OF RECTIFICATION ORDER DATED 20.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF ORDER DATED 21.2.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM AGAINST EXT.P2 ORDER FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED ALONG WITH EXT.P3 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF STAY ORDER DATED 6.9.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE SALES REGISTER. EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF NOTICE DATED 9.5.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT UNDER THE RR ACT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //// P.A TO JUDGE