Fabbri Foods PVT. LTD. vs. State Tax Officer - Kerala High Court, 09 October 2018

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY ,THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 17TH ASWINA, 1940 WP(C).No. 32845 of 2018 PETITIONER/S: M/S.FABBRI FOODS PVT. LTD. KSIDC INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE, 10/521J, KINALUR P.O, BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE-673612, REPRESENTED ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SHRI.AQIB ABDUL NASIR. BY ADV. SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE TAX OFFICER GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE 673305. 2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, (APPEALS) NIRMAL ARCADE, ERANJIPALAM, KOZHIKODE 673006 3 THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHEROOTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE 673032 4 INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SALES TAX COMPLEX, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KOZHIKODE 673 006 OTHER PRESENT: GP. SMT. M.M. JASMINE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.32845/2018 -2-

J U D G M E N T The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act), questioned the Ext.P1 assessment order. It resulted in the Ext.P3 order.

The petitioner again challenged the Ext.P3 order in the second appeal, before the Appellate Tribunal, the 3rd respondent. The petitioner, in the appeal, filed a stay petition, too. Ventilating its grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition in the appeal, 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 a second 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 -3- 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 JJJ APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF ORDER DATED 07.10.2016 FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 U/S. 25(1) OF KAVT ACT COMPETED BY 1ST RESPONDENT IN DEMANDING REVERSE TAX ON PURCHASE OF FREEZERS. EXHIBIT P2OF ONLINE APPEAL DATED 03.01.2017 SUBMITTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AGAINST EXT P1 ASSESSMENT EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF 1ST APPELLATE ORDER DATED 02.06.2018 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN EXT P2 APPEAL -4- EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF 2ND APPEAL FILED BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT P3 1ST APPELLATE ORDER EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF STAY PETITION SUBMITTED ALONG WITH EXT P4 APPEAL BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT