Uthubathu vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax - Kerala High Court, 08 August 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 08TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1941 WP(C).No.21670 OF 2019(G) PETITIONER: UTHUBATHU, PROPRIETOR, SURANA GRANITE, VETTIKATTIRI, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.ANTONY JONES RESPONDENTS: 1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, SPECIAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR-680004. 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, STATE TAX COMPLEX, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR-680004. 3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, STATE TAX COMPLEX, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR-680004. BY DR. THUSHARA JAMES, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.21670 OF 2019(G) 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 a delay condonation petition of 75 days in Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 stay petition. The petitioner prays for appropriate direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of Exts.P3 and 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 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 petitioner that in the manner the law provides for protecting the interest of appellant pending appeal, the WP(C).No.21670 OF 2019(G) 3 orders on delay petition and stay petition are passed expeditiously. Hence the writ petition.

Perused Exts. P1, P2, P3 and 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 DCS

WP(C).No.21670 OF 2019(G) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 DATED 27.03.2019. EXHIBIT P2OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.07.2019. EXHIBIT P3OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.07.2019. EXHIBIT P4OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.07.2019. EXHIBIT P5OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 DATED 28.05.2019.