Renish Mathachan vs. State Tax Officer - Kerala High Court, 20 September 2019

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 29TH BHADRA, 1941 WP(C).No.25013 OF 2019(B) PETITIONER: RENISH MATHACHAN PROPRIETOR, M/S.BUSINESS CONNECTIONS, CC.28/993, PONNETH TEMPLE ROAD, KADAVANTHARA, COCHIN-682020. BY ADVS. SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL SRI.JENSON FRANCIS PAYANKAN RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE TAX OFFICER, FORMERLY: COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, 2ND CIRCLE, THRIPUNITHURA-682 301. 2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX COMPLEX, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682015. 3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682030. GP. DR. THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.25013 OF 2019(B) 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner filed appeal in Ext.P2 aggrieved by the order of assessment in Ext.P1 made under the KVAT Act. The petitioner has filed the appeal with Ext.P3 stay petition. The petitioner prays for appropriate direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 expeditiously.

The case of petitioner is that either the mere filing of appeal or mere pendency of appeal does not amount to granting stay by the appellate authority. The delay in considering and disposing of Ext.P3 results in the assessing officer taking steps for recovering the tax amount which is under challenge in Ext.P2. The assessing officer, if is successful in his effort the statutory appeal would become either academic or ineffective. It is further contended by the petitioner that in the manner the law provides for protecting the interest of appellant pending appeal, the order on stay petition is passed expeditiously. Hence the writ petition.

WP(C).No.25013 OF 2019(B) 3

Perused Exts. P1, P2 and P3. Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to second respondent to dispose of the stay petition in Ext.P3. Having regard to the limited prayer and the grounds referred to above, this Court is satisfied that the writ petition can be disposed of by this order: (a) The appellate authority/second respondent considers and disposes of Ext.P3 application as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. (b) The respondents are directed not to take coercive steps or recover the amounts determined in the orders under appeal for ten weeks from today. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE PV

WP(C).No.25013 OF 2019(B) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF ORDER DATED 29.7.2019 COMPLETED U/S.25(1) OF THE KVAT ACT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15, BY 1ST RESPONDENT AFTER MAKING HUGE ADDITIONS. EXHIBIT P2OF APPEAL DATED 7.9.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT.P1 ORDER. EXHIBIT P3OF STAY PETITION DATED 7.9.2019 SUBMITTED ALONG WITH EXT.P2 APPEAL, BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL \\// PA TO JUDGE PV