P.M.Sankaran vs. Commercial Tax Officer - Kerala High Court, 25 February 2019

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU MONDAY ,THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1940 WP(C).No. 5508 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: P.M.SANKARAN,AGED 62 YEARS PROP. FRESH PRODUCTS, 5/39, AMBALAKADAVU, CHERANELLORE, KOCHI - 682 034. BY ADVS. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN SRI.N.SANTHOSHKUMAR SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR (A-1768) RESPONDENT/S: 1 COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER KVAT CIRCLE-I, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 018. 2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 015. 3 HONBLE KAVT TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM, THEVARA, KOCHI - 682 015, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4 INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM AT KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682 030. OTHER PRESENT: DR. THUSHARA JAMES, GP -2- W.P.(C). No. 5508 of 2019 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

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, who rejected it. Later, the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent with second appeal. The petitioner has also filed 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 appeal. It appears that he has also filed stay petition. Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority decides

-3- on the stay petition. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 3rd respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the 3rd respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE das APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 2014-15 DATED 11/12/2015 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 26/6/2018 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3OF THE RECTIFICATION PETITION DATED 31/7/2018 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 1/8/2018. EXHIBIT P4OF THE RECTIFICATION ORDER DATED 7/2/2019 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

-4- EXHIBIT P5OF THE APPEAL AGAINST EXT.P2 AND P4 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 15/2/2019. EXHIBIT P5 AOF THE PETITIONER FOR STAY FILED IN EXT.P5 APPEAL ON 15/2/2019. EXHIBIT P5 BOF THE PETITION FOR EARLY HEARING FILED IN EXT.P5 APPEAL ON 15/2/2019.