Geo Foundations And Structures (P LTD. vs. The State Tax Officer(Works Contract) - 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.21598 OF 2019(Y) PETITIONER: GEO FOUNDATIONS AND STRUCTURES (P LTD., 6TH FLOOR, ALPHA PLAZA, K.P.VALLON ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI - 682 020, REP. BY ITS SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER, SRI.A.V.S.CHAKRAVARTI. BY ADVS. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.M.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER(WORKS CONTRACT), OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX COMPLEX, PERUMANOOR, KOCHI - 682 015. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX COMPLEX, PERUMANOOR, KOCHI - 682 015. 3 THE STATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, ERNAKULAM AT CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, PIN - 682 030. 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.21598 OF 2019(Y) 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner filed appeal in Ext.P2 aggrieved by the order of assessment in Ext.P1 made under the CST 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 petition.

WP(C).No.21598 OF 2019(Y) 3

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 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 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.21598 OF 2019(Y) 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28/03/2019 FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM AGAINST EXT.P1 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED IN EXT.P2 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF NOTICE DATED 24/06/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER THE RR ACT FOR 2012-13.