New Steel Land vs. Commercial Tax Officer - Kerala High Court, 29 November 2019

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941 WP(C).No.32497 OF 2019(J) PETITIONER/S: NEW STEEL LAND OPP.L.P.SCHOOL CHITHALI ROAD, KUZHALMANNAM P.O., PALAKKAD-678 702, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, *A.RAJU, S/O.ARU, AGED 46 YEARS. *NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE CAUSE TITLE OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 32497/2019(J) IS CORRECTED AS A 'A. RAJAN' INSTEAD OF 'A.RAJU' AS PER ORDER DATED 20.12.2019 IN IA 1/2019 BY ADVS. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH SRI.G.KEERTHIVAS RESPONDENT/S: 1 COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER SECOND CIRCLE, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2 ASST.COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), STATE GOODS AND SERVICES DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM-682 001. 3 UNION BANK OF INDIA, KUZHALMANNAM BRANCH, KMS PLAZA, CHANDAPURA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 702. GP DR.THUSHARA JAMES R4 BY SRI. ASP KURUP, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).32497/19 2

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P5 appeal, Ext.P6 delay condonation petition together with Ext.P7 stay petition before the 2nd respondent. Exts.P2 and P3 are the revenue recovery notices issued under the KVAT Act. Ext.P4 is the communication referring to the prohibitory order issued by the 3rd respondent bank, freezing the bank account of the petitioner. 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 as also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

Taking note of the fact that the delay occasioned is only 116 days in preferring the appeal before the 2nd respondent, I deem it appropriate to condone the said delay in filing the appeal and direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass 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 Exts.P2 and P3 notices and the prohibitory order referred to Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 2nd respondent, as directed, and the orders communicated to the petitioner. Resultantly, during the time when the stay granted by this Court is in force, the petitioner shall be permitted to operate the account referred to in the prohibitory order. 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

okb //// P.S. to Judge APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 30.03.2019. EXHIBIT P3OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 10.07.2019. EXHIBIT P4COMMUNICATION FROM ITS BANK, UNION BANK OF INDIA, KUZHALMANNAM BRANCH DATED 05.09.2019 STATING THAT A NOTICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE ASST.COMMISSIONER, STATE TAX DATED 30.08.2019. EXHIBIT P5OF THE APPEAL AGAINST EXT.P1 ORDER PRESENTED ON 15.10.2019. EXHIBIT P6OF APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED IN EXT.P5 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P7OF APPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXT.P1 ORDER HEREIN FILED IN EXT.P5 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P8OF THE APPLICATION FOR URGENT HEARING OF THE APPEAL IN EXT.P5 APPEAL.