BharatTaxGST

Sree Akshay Builders PVT.LTD. vs. The State Tax Officer (Works Contract)

Original PDF →
WP(C)/29199/2019HC KeralaGSTCNR KLHC01075850201931 October 2019Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages
For Petitioner: SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM), SRI.M.RAJAGOPAL

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

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 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 9TH KARTHIKA, 1941 WP(C).No.29199 OF 2019(Y) PETITIONER: SREE AKSHAY BUILDERS PVT.LTD. PUNCHIRI, OPP TTC KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR RADHAKRISHNAN B BY ADVS. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.M.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER (WORKS CONTRACT) STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, TAX TOWER, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 002 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, TAX TOWERS, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 002 3 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 SMT. THUSHARA JAMES; GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.29199 OF 2019 2

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order for the assessment year 2016-17 under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal together with Ext.P3 delay condonation application 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.

2.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:

1.

Taking note of the fact that the delay in approaching the 2nd respondent is only 120 days, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay and direct the 2nd respondent shall 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.

2.

Recovery steps pursuant to Ext.P5 Revenue Recovery Notice for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner.

WP(C).No.29199 OF 2019 3

3.

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 SJ

WP(C).No.29199 OF 2019 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18-03-2019 FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM AGAINST EXT.P1 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE PETITION FOR CONDONING DELAY IN FILING APPEAL EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED ALONG WITH EXT P2 APPEAL EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE R.R NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 23-10-2019

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.