S.Najeem vs. The State Tax Officer(Investigation Branch) - 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.24331 OF 2019(N) PETITIONERS: 1 S.NAJEEM SAJEER MANZIL, NAVAIKULAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2 S. SAJEEV, SAJEER MANZIL, NAVAIKULAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADVS. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.M.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER(INVESTIGATION BRANCH), STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, ASRAMOM, KOLLAM 691 002 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM 691 002 3 DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 BY DR. THUSHARA JAMES, GOVERNMENT PLEADER 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.24331 OF 2019(N) 2

JUDGMENT The petitioners filed appeal in Ext.P2 aggrieved by the penalty order in Ext.P1 made under Section 67(1) of the KVAT Act. The petitioners have filed the appeal with a delay condonation petition of 88 days in Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 stay petition. The petitioners pray for appropriate direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of Exts.P3 and Ext.P4 expeditiously.

The case of petitioners 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 Exts.P3 and P4 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 petitioners that in the manner the law provides for WP(C).No.24331 OF 2019(N) 3 protecting the interest of appellant pending appeal, the orders on delay petition and stay petition are passed expeditiously. Hence the writ petition.

Perused Exts. P1 to P4. Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to second respondent to dispose of the delay condonation petition and stay petition in Exts.P3 and P4 respectively. 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 Exts.P3 and P4 applications 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

WP(C).No.24331 OF 2019(N) 4 DCS APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF PENALTY ORDER DATED 08-03-2019 FOR THE YEAR 2006-07 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM AGAINST EXT. P1 FILED BEFORE THE 21ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE DELAY PETITION FILED ALONG WITH EXT. P2 APPEAL EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED ALONG WITH EXT P2 APPEAL EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF RECOVERY ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 07-06-2019