Joseph.G.Pulikkal vs. The State Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 28TH BHADRA, 1941 WP(C).No.24706 OF 2019(K) PETITIONER/S: JOSEPH.G.PULIKKAL AGED 52 YEARS PROPRIETOR, M/S. UPDATE COMPUTER WORLD, TC 18/1792, ROCE BAZAR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER DEPT. OF STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, I CIRCLE, THRISSUR- 680004. 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX POOTHOLE, THRISSUR-680004. 3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, SGST DEPARTMENT, STATE TAX COMPLEX, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR-680004. OTHER PRESENT: GP. DR. THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 24706/2019 -2- J U D G M E N T Dated this the 19th day of September 2019 The petitioner filed appeals in Exts.P3 and P4 aggrieved by the orders of assessment in Exts.P1 and P2 made under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. The petitioner has filed the appeals with Exts.P5 and P6 stay petitions. The petitioner prays for appropriate direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of Exts.P5 and P6 expeditiously. 2. 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 Exts.P5 and P6 results in the assessing officer taking steps for recovering the tax amount which is under challenge in Exts.P3 and P4. 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 W.P.(C) No. 24706/2019 -3- orders on stay petition is passed expeditiously. Hence the writ petition. 3. Perused Exts. P1, P2, P3, P4, P5 and P6. Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to second respondent to dispose of the stay petitions in Ext.P5 and P6. Having regard to the limited prayer and the grounds referred to above, this Court is satisfied that the writ petition can be