Anand Vijayakumar vs. The State Tax Officer(Wc) - Kerala High Court, 15 July 2019

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1941 WP(C).No.19138 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: ANAND VIJAYAKUMAR AGED 32 YEARS PROPRIETOR, M/S. SAI ENGINEERING, 10/544, KANNDI, THANNEERPANDAL, KINASSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER(WC) STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD - 678 001 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD - 678 001 GP. SMT. M.M. JASMIN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- WP(C).No.19138 of 2019

JUDGMENT The petitioner filed appeals in Exts.P2 and P2(a) aggrieved by the order of assessment in Exts.P1 and P1(a) made under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. The petitioner has filed the appeals with delay condonation petitions of 264 days in Exts.P3 and P3(a) and stay petitions in Exts.P4 and P4(a). The petitioner prays for appropriate direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of Exts.P3 and P3(a), P4 and P4(a) 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 P3(a),P4 and P4(a) results in the assessing officer taking steps for recovering the tax amount which is under challenge in Exts.P2 and P2(a). The assessing officer, if is successful in his effort the statutory

-3- 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 delay petitions and stay petitions are passed expeditiously. Hence the writ petition.

Perused Exts.P1, P1(a), P2, P2(a), P3, P3(a), P4 and P4(a). Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to 2nd respondent to dispose of the delay condonation petition and stay petitions in Exts.P3 and P3(a), P4 and P4(a) 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/2nd respondent considers and disposes of Exts.P3 and P3(a), P4 and P4(a) applications as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date

-4- 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 JS

-5- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 EXHIBIT P1 (A) COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 EXHIBIT P2 (A) COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 EXHIBIT P3(A) COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 EXHIBIT P4(A) COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16