Cochin Sanitary Stores vs. Siraj.A - Kerala High Court, 18 June 2019

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1941 Con.Case(C).No.1127 of 2019 IN WA. 786/2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA 786/2019 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 11.4.2019 PETITIONER/APPELLANT: COCHIN SANITARY STORES 40/3388, T.D. ROAD, ERNAKULAM KOCHI 682 031, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER K.J. SUDHAKARA KAMATH. BY ADVS. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.V.VIMAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: 1 SIRAJ.A AGE AND FATHERS NAME OF THE RESPONDENT IS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER-FIRM WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, SPECIAL CIRCLE, MATTENCHERY AT ALUVA 683 101. 2 HARIDAS.B.S, AGE AND FATHERS NAME OF THE RESPONDENT IS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER-FIRM, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) V, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, THEVARA KOCHI 682 015 SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V. TEKCHAND THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Cont. Case (C).No.1127/2019 2

J U D G M E N T Hrishikesh Roy, CJ Heard Sri. K.U. Vijayan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. This Contempt case is based on the judgment dated 11.4.2019 in the Writ Appeal No.786 of 2019. 2. The petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act and was challenging the assessment and penalty imposed upon him for the year 2015- 2016. The learned Single Judge had closed the Writ Petition No.3978 of 2019 giving liberty to the assessee to exhaust the statutory remedy. The Division Bench, through their judgment dated 11.4.2019 in the Writ Appeal No.786 of 2019, dismissed the assessee's Appeal. However, liberty was granted to the appellant to challenge the assessment order and the penalty before the statutory authorities. The court observed that if any interim application is filed seeking stay, it should be considered expeditiously. However while remitting the assessee to the appellate authorities, this court did not pass any stay order against the recovery, pending disposal of the applications by the statutory authorities.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Appeal and stay applications were filed on 2.5.2019, within the time granted under the judgment dated 11.4.2019. But even before the interim application could be considered, the Revenue Authorities through a prohibitory order, recovered the entire disputed amount. According to the counsel, this amounts to contempt of this court's direction by the respondent authorities.

On careful perusal of the judgment in the Writ Appeal No.786 of 2019, it is seen that the statutory authorities were directed to consider the interim applications without delay, after affording opportunity to the assessee and the Revenue. No stay was operating against recovery of the assessed tax and penalty. As it appears the Revenue Authorities acted on such basis.

In the above circumstances, we do not see any contumacious conduct on the part of the respondent warranting court's intervention. Accordingly, this case is closed. Hrishikesh Roy, Chief Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, Judge sou.

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE AOF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO. 786/2019 DATED 11/4/2019 ANNEXURE BOF THE COVERING LETTER TO APPEAL FILED ON 2/5/2019 ANNEXURE COF THE APPEAL FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 FILED ON 2/5/2019 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE DOF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR RECEIPT OF THE APPEAL FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 ON 2/5/2019 ANNEXURE EOF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE NO. F (RR) NO. S2-147/19-20 DATED 23/5/2019 RECEIVED ON 28/5/2019. ANNEXURE FOF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER IN FORM 3 DATED 7/6/2019 SERVED ON KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD., ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE GOF THE LETTER DATED 10/6/2019 FROM BRANCH MANAGER, KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM INTIMATING DEBIT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.34,90/250/- WITH THE ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER FIRM