Extramarks Education PVT LTD vs. State Of Kerala - Kerala High Court, 20 February 2019

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WEDNESDAY,THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1940 WP(C).No. 5028 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: EXTRAMARKS EDUCATION PVT LTD NO.33/2034A,SREEKALA ROAD,VENNALA, PALARIVATTOM,COCHIN-682025.REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY-MR.BALACHANDRAN.N. BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, SGST DEPARTMENT COMPLEX,THEVARA, KOCHI-682015. 3 THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, BOAT STATUE,MARKET ROAD,PERIYAR NAGAR, ALUVA-683101. -2- W.P.(C). No. 5028 of 2019 4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GAUTAM BUDDH NAGAR,NEAR LG OFFICE, SURAJPUR,GREATER NOIDA,UTTAR PRADESH 201306. OTHER PRESENT: GP. SR. THUSHARA JAMES. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.02.2019, 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 3rd 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

-3- 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. Because, the 4th respondent resides in another State, the 3rd respondent will communicate a copy of this judgment to that authority as well. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE das APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2016 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14. -4- EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM (WITHOUT ANNEXURES)DATED 08.02.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE STAY PETITION DATED 08.02.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE NOTICE DATED NIL THE FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY,MR.ATULL KULSHRETHA AND THE TRANSLATION OF THE SAME. EXHIBIT P5 AOF THE NOTICE DATED NIL THE FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY,MR.ROHIT JAIN AND THE TRANSLATION OF THE SAME.