BharatTaxGST

Brmsco Garments P LTD vs. State Of Kerala

Original PDF →
WP(C)/36169/2018HC KeralaGSTCNR KLHC01083543201807 November 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU4 pages
For Petitioner: SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA, SRI.A.P.VASAVANFor Respondent: GP. DR. THUSHARA JAMES

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 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1940 WP(C).No. 36169 of 2018 PETITIONER: BRMSCO GARMENTS P LTD ANJELPETTY, PAMPAKUDA P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR BY ADVS. SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA SRI.A.P.VASAVAN RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER-I STATE GODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, SPECIAL CIRCLE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683542. 3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-680 011. 4 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT KERALA, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 661. OTHER PRESENT: GP. DR. THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 36169 of 2018 2

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.P1 order, before the 3rd 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.

2.

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

3.

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 JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SPECIAL CIRCLE PERUMBAVOOR DATED 21.5.2018. EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF FORM OF APPEAL DATED 28.7.2018. EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE INTERIM APPLICATION FOR STAY DATED 28.7.2018. EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES SHOWING THE REMITANCE OF FEE. EXHIBIT P5 AOF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT DATED 29.8.2018. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS - NIL //// P.A. TO JUDGE

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.