M/S.Cinda Engineering And Construction PVT.LTD. vs. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) - Kerala High Court, 01 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 01ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1941 WP(C).No.20906 of 2019 PETITIONER : M/S.CINDA ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD. SINDHOOR, 41/2973, CHITTOOR ROAD, KACHERIPADI, KOCHI- 682 018. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. BHARAT ARORA. BY ADVS. SRI.A.KUMAR SHRI.JOB ABRAHAM SMT G.MINI(1748) SRI.AJAY V.ANAND SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR SRI.P.S.SREEPRASAD RESPONDENTS: 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682 016. 2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (WORKS CONTRACT) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM-682 015. OTHER PRESENT: DR. THUSHARA JAMES, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.20906 of 2019 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner filed appeals in Ext.P2 and P5 aggrieved by the orders of assessment in Exts.P1 and P4 respectively made under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. The petitioner has filed the appeals with Ext.P3 and P6 stay petitions. The petitioner prays for appropriate direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of Exts.P3 and P6 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 P6 results in the assessing officer taking steps for recovering the tax amount which is under challenge in Exts.P2 and P5. 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 orders on the stay petitions are passed expeditiously. Hence the writ petition.

Perused Exts.P1 and P4, Exts.P2 and P5 and Exts.P3 and P6. Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to the 1st respondent to dispose of the stay petitions in Exts.P3 and P6 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/1st respondent considers and disposes of Exts.P3 and P6 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 // NS P.A. To Judge APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 20.3.2019 FOR AY 2011-12 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FOR AY 2011-12. EXHIBIT P3OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY. EXHIBIT P4OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 23.3.2019 FOR AY 2012-13 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FOR AY 2012-13. EXHIBIT P6OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY. RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS: NIL