Aspinwall And Company Limited vs. State Of Kerala - Kerala High Court, 09 July 2019

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1941 WP(C).No.18707 of 2019 PETITIONER: ASPINWALL AND COMPANY LIMITED 926/A1-15,DEVANKULANGARA, EDAPALLY, KOCHI-682 024, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, MR.T.R.RADHAKRISHNAN. BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SMT.S.PARVATHI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT , TAXES, DEPARTMENT , SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, SGST DEPARTMENT COMPLEX, THEVARA, KOCHI-682 015. 3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, DEPARTMENT, KOCHI-680 030 GP. DR. THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.18707 of 2019 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner filed appeal in Ext.P2 aggrieved by the orders of assessment in Ext.P1 made under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. The petitioner prays for appropriate direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 stay petition 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 appeal. 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.

Perused Exts.P1 assessment order P2 appeal and P3 stay. Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to 2nd respondent to dispose of the delay condonation petitions and stay petitions 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/ 2nd respondent considers and disposes of Ext.P3 stay application 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 nak JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.5.2019 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE APPEAL DATED 26.6.2019 (WITHOUT ANNEXURES) FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE STAY PETITION DATED 25.6.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT //// P.A. TO JUDGE