Unidesign Builders vs. The State Tax Officer - Kerala High Court, 07 August 2019

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1941 WP(C).No.21615 OF 2019(B) PETITIONER: UNIDESIGN BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS (P) LTD. KOTTAPPURAM ROAD, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NAVANEETH MENON BY ADVS. SMT.S.K.DEVI SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER, SQUAD NO.III, DEPT.OF STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, THRISSUR-680 004 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, POOTHOLE,THRISSUR-680 004 3 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, SGST DEPARTMENT, STATE TAX COMPLEX, POOTHOLE,THRISSUR-680 004 SMT.DR.THUSHARA JAMES -G.P. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.21615 OF 2019(B) 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner filed appeal in Ext.P2 aggrieved by the order of penalty in Ext.P1 made under Section 67(1) of the KVAT Act. The petitioner has filed the appeal along 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. Hence the writ

WP(C).No.21615 OF 2019(B) 3 petition.

Perused Ext. P1, P2 and P3. 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.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/second respondent considers and disposes of Ext.P3 stay petition 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.21615 OF 2019(B) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.ITIO/II/I/016-17 DATED 31.5.2019 FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 EXHIBIT P2OF THE APPEAL DATED 22.6.2019 EXHIBIT P3OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 22.6.2019 EXHIBIT P4OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.A7- 2128/2019 DATED 20.7.2019 UNDER SECTION 7 OF KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT