Vasu T.G. vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT The petitioner, an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('KVAT Act') on the rolls of the 1st respondent, questioned the Exts.P1 & P2 assessment orders, before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has also filed stay petitions in the appeals. Ventilating his grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petitions, 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 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.
..3..
Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 2nd respondent considers the stay petitions. I also hope that the 2nd respondent will dispose of the stay petitions expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE Bka/16.02.2019 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32081189308/2015-16 DATED 30-11- 2018. EXHIBIT P2OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32081189308/2016-17 DATED 29-12- 2018. EXHIBIT P3OF THE APPEAL FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 7-1-2019. EXHIBIT P4OF THE APPEAL FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 10-2-2019. ..4.. EXHIBIT P5OF THE STAY PETITION FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 7-1-2019. EXHIBIT P6OF THE STAY PETITION FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 11-2-2019. EXHIBIT P7OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.185/2018-19 DATED 28-1-2019 ISSUED U/S 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT.
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.