Joseph Steels vs. State Tax Officer - Kerala High Court, 14 February 2019

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY ,THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 25TH MAGHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 4465 of 2019 PETITIONER: JOSEPH STEELS 1/1120, WADAKKANCHERY ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 503, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI. DASAN P.J. BY ADV. SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE TAX OFFICER FORMERLY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, MINI CIVIL STATION, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR-680 503 2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, POOTHOL, THRISSUR-680 004 3 THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 015 4 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, POOTHOL, THRISSUR-680 004 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER DR. THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 WP(C).No. 4465 of 2019

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 Exts.P1 and P1(a) assessment orders, before the 2nd respondent, who rejected it. Later, the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent with second appeal. 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 3rd respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the 3rd respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU SKA JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF ORDER DATED 14.03.2014 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT, FOR THE YEAR 2010-11, IN ASSESSING THE STOCK TAKEN FOR ASSESSMENT. EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF ORDER DATED 29.03.2014 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT , FOR THE YEAR 2011-12, IN MAKING ADDITIONAL TO CONCEDED TURNOVER ALLEGING UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE/SALES. EXHIBIT P2OF CONDITIONAL STAY ORDER PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT AND COMPLIANCE MADE BY PETITIONER DURING PENDENCY OF APPEAL FILED AGAINST EXT.P1 ORDER. EXHIBIT P2 AOF CONDITIONAL STAY ORDER PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT AND COMPLIANCE MADE BY PETITIONER DURING PENDENCY OF APPEAL FILED AGAINST EXT. P1(A) ORDER. EXHIBIT P3OF 1ST APPELLATE ORDER DATED 12.4.2017 COMPLETED BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL FOR 2010-2011. EXHIBIT P3 AOF 1ST APPELLATE ORDER DATED 12.4.2017 COMPLETED BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL FOR 2011-12 EXHIBIT P4OF FORM NO. 31 2ND APPEAL DATED 27.7.2018 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT CHALLENGING EXT. P3 1ST APPELLATE ORDER. EXHIBIT P4 AOF FORM NO. 31 2ND APPEAL DATED 27.07.2018, SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT CHALLENGING EXT.P3(A) 1ST APPELLATE ORDER. EXHIBIT P5OF AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION FOR STAY DATED 27.07.2018 SUBMITTED PETITIONER ALONG WITH EXT.P4 APPEAL, BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 AOF AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION FOR STAY DATED 27.07.2018 SUBMITTED PETITIONER ALONG WITH EXT P4(A) APPEAL, BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF MECHANICAL CONDITIONAL STAY ORDER DATED 12.12.2018, COMMUNICATED TO PETITIONER ON 7.02.2019 BY 3RD RESPONDENT IN EXT. P5 STAY PETITION. EXHIBIT P6 AOF MECHANICAL CONDITIONAL STAY ORDER DATED 12.12.2018, COMMUNICATED TO PETITIONER ON 07.02.2019 BY 3RD RESPONDENT, IN EXT. P5(A) STAY PETITION. EXHIBIT P7OF JUDGMENT DATED 15.01.2019 IN WP(C) NO. 1140 OF 2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ON SIMILAR SET OF FACTS. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL //// PA TO JUDGE