Baby Varghese vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('KVAT Act') on the rolls of the 1st respondent, questioned the Ext.P1 assessment order, before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has also filed a stay petition in the appeal. Ventilating his grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time his statutory remedy of filing an appeal. It appears that he has also filed a stay petition. Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 2nd respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the 2nd respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28-04-2018 FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 26-02-2019 AGAINST EXT.P1. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 26-02-2019 IN EXT.P2 APPEAL.
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.