M/S.Sivasarvam Builders PVT LTD. vs. State Tax Officer (Works Contract) - Kerala High Court, 08 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 08TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1941 WP(C).No.18419 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: M/S.SIVASARVAM BUILDERS PVT LTD., DOOR NO.I/160, AISWARYA MANGAT LANE, PUNKUNNAM P.O., PIN- 680002, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE TAX OFFICER (WORKS CONTRACT), STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, PUTHOLE, THRISSUR- 680004. 2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX COMPLEX, PUTHOLE, THRISSUR- 680004. 3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, PUTHOLE, THRISSUR- 680004. GP DR. THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.18419 of 2019 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner filed appeal in Ext.P2 aggrieved by the order of assessment in Ext.P1 made under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. The petitioner has filed the appeal with a delay condonation petition in Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 stay petition. The petitioner prays for appropriate direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of Exts.P3 and P4 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 P4 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 orders on delay petition and stay petition are passed expeditiously. Hence the writ petition.

Perused Exts. P1, P2, P3 and P4. Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the delay condonation petition and stay petition in Exts.P3 and P4 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 P4 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 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF ORDER DATED 27.07.2018 COMPLETED U/S.25(1) OF THE KVAT ACT FOR 2015-16 BY 1ST RESPONDENT, WITHOUT VERIFICATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. EXHIBIT P2OF APPEAL DATED 10.06.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT.P1 ORDER. EXHIBIT P3OF PETITION FOR CONDONING DELAY DATED 10.06.2019 SUBMITTED ALONG WITH EXT.P2 APPEAL, BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4OF STAY PETITION DATED 10.06.2019 SUBMITTED ALONG WITH EXT.P2 APPEAL, BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT.