BharatTaxGST

Electrofine vs. The State Of Kerala

Original PDF →
WP(C)/36978/2018HC KeralaGSTCNR KLHC01085675201814 November 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU4 pages
For Respondent: DR THUSHARA JAMES, GP

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WEDNESDAY,THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 23RD KARTHIKA, 1940 WP(C).No. 36978 of 2018 PETITIONER/S: M/s.ELECTROFINE, ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, A.K.G. ROAD, EDAPPALLY TOLL, PIN- 682024, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR.JAYAPRAKASH T.G. BY ADVS. SRI.SOJAN MATHEW SMT.K.J.VALSALA KUMARI SRI.K.N.KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI SRI.V.C.CHARLY RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001 2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(ASSESSMENT), STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT SPECIAL CIRCLE III, COMMERCIAL TAX COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM 682015 3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), STATE GODS AND SERVICES TA DEPARTMENT, COMMERCIAL TAX COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM 682015 -2- W.P.(C). No. 36978 of 2018 4 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ROOM NO. 46, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110 001 OTHER PRESENT: DR THUSHARA JAMES, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.11.2018, 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 2nd respondent, questioned the Ext.P3 assessment order, before the 3rd 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.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

3.

I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time his

-3- 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 JUDGE das APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF PROPOSAL NOTICE DATED 24.05.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2OF OBJECTION LETTER DATED 13.07.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER

-4- EXHIBIT P3OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.7.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM ALONG WITH APPLICATION FOR STAY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5OF THE RECTIFICATION ORDER DATED 4.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

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.