BharatTaxGST

Abdul Kareem.M vs. The State Tax Officer

Original PDF →
WP(C)/6411/2019HC KeralaGSTCNR KLHC01016671201905 March 2019Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU4 pages
For Respondent: GP DR. THUSHARA JAMES

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY,THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1940 WP(C).No. 6411 of 2019 PETITIONER: ABDUL KAREEM.M, AGED 66 YEARS, ARADHANA, CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN- 691583. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, WORKS CONTRACT, ASRAMOM P.O., KOLLAM- 691002. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ASHRAMAOM, KOLLAM- 691002. OTHER PRESENT: GP DR. THUSHARA JAMES. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC No.6411 of 2019 2

JUDGMENT The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, on the rolls of the first respondent, questioned the Exts.P1 and P1(a) assessment orders, before the second respondent. The petitioner has also filed the Exts.P3 and P3(a) stay petitions in the Exts.P2 and P2(a) appeals. Ventilating his grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could considers the stay petitions in the appeals, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

3.

I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time his statutory remedy of filing appeals. It appears that he has also filed stay petitions. Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay petitions. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the second

WPC No.6411 of 2019 3 respondent considers the stay petitions. I also hope that the second respondent will dispose of the stay petitions expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

WPC No.6411 of 2019 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.01.2018 FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.01.2018 FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 26.02.2019 AGAINST EXT.P1. EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 26.02.2019 AGAINST EXT.P1(A). EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 26.02.2019 IN EXT.P2 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 26.02.2019 IN EXT.P2(A) APPEAL. Css/

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.