N And N Marketing vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
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. The petitioner has also filed a stay petition in the appeal. Ventilating its 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 its statutory remedy of filing an appeal. It appears that it 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 2nd respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the 2nd respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
JUDGE WP(C).No. 3481 of 2019 3 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 18-06-2018. EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE APPEAL FILED FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 18-12-2018. EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE STAY PETITION FILED FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 18-12-2018. EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE RR NOTICE IN FORM NO. 1 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED, 02-11-2018 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P5 AOF THE RR NOTICE IN FORM NO. 10 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 27-11-2018 ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
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.