Tata Sky Limited vs. The Asst. Commissioner (Assmt) - Kerala High Court, 03 September 2019

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI TUESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 12TH BHADRA, 1941 WP(C).No.23901 OF 2019(K) PETITIONER: M/S.TATA SKY LIMITED NOEL FOCUS, 6TH FLOOR, SEAPORT AIRPORT ROAD, CHITTETTUKARA, CSEZ P. O., ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, C. SHAJI. BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAJ MOHAN SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER (ASSMT) COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPL. CIRCLE - II, (NOW STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT (KERALA), ERNAKULAM - 682015. 2 THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM - 682015. 3 THE STATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ERNAKULAM AT CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682030. BY DR. THUSHARA JAMES, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.23901 OF 2019(K) 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner filed appeal in Ext.P3 aggrieved by the order of assessment in Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 appellate order made under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. The petitioner has filed the appeal along with Ext.P4 stay petition. The petitioner prays for appropriate direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of Ext.P4 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.P4 results in the assessing officer taking steps for recovering the tax amount which is under challenge in Ext.P3. 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

WP(C).No.23901 OF 2019(K) 3 petition.

Perused Ext. 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 stay petition in Ext.P4. 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.P4 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 DCS

WP(C).No.23901 OF 2019(K) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32071187632C/2013-14 DATED 28.02.2017 EXHIBIT P2OF THE APPELLATE ORDER KVATA NO.1420/2017 DATED 19.12.2018 EXHIBIT P3OF THE APPEAL DATED 20.05.2019 EXHIBIT P4OF THE STAY PETITION ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT DATED 20.05.2019 EXHIBIT P5OF THE DEMAND NOTICE U/S 7 NO.A5- 1146/19 RRC NO.08/2018 DATED 18.8.2019