Varghese Thomas vs. State Tax Officer - Kerala High Court, 05 September 2019

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 14TH BHADRA, 1941 WP(C).No.24468 OF 2019 PETITIONER/S: VARGHESE THOMAS PROPRIETOR, M/S. NOVAL COMBINES 31/1468A, LPS ROAD, PONNURUNNI, VYTTILA, COCHIN 682 019. BY ADV. SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE TAX OFFICER STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, MINI CIVIL STATION, 2ND CIRCLE, THIRUPUNITHURA 682 301. 2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX COMPLEX, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM COCHIN 682 015. 3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, COCHIN 682 030. OTHER PRESENT: DR. THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.24468 OF 2019 -2-

JUDGMENT The petitioner filed appeal in Ext.P2 aggrieved by the order of assessment in Ext.P1 made under Section 25(1) of 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.

WP(C).No.24468 OF 2019 -3-

Hence the writ petition.

Perused Exts. P1, P2 and P3. Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to 2nd 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/2nd 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 JS

WP(C).No.24468 OF 2019 -4- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF ORDER DATED 23.3.2019 COMPLETED U/S. 25(1) OF THE KAVAT ACT FOR 2012-13 BY 1ST RESPONDENT, ALLEGING UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES BY KVATIS SCRUTINY AFTER ADDING 15% TOWARDS GROSS PROFIT AND OF MAKING EQUAL AMOUNT ADDITION. EXHIBIT P2OF APPEAL DATED 25.4.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT P1 ORDER. EXHIBIT P3OF STAY PETITION DATED 25.4.2019 SUBMITTED ALONG WITH EXT P2 APPEAL BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4OF REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE IN FORM NO.1 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY 3RD RESPONDENT, PURSUANT TO EXT P1 DEMAND.