M/S. Orion Enterprises vs. Intelligence Officer - Kerala High Court, 14 September 2018

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU FRIDAY ,THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 23RD BHADRA, 1940 WP(C).No. 30262 of 2018 PETITIONER/S: M/S. ORION ENTERPRISES 15/355, OPP. POST OFFICE, TIRUR ROAD, MALAPPURAM - 676 519, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.ANTONY THARU. BY ADV. SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL RESPONDENT/S: 1 INTELLIGENCE OFFICER SQUAD NO.VI, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 540. 2 INTELLIGENCE INSPECTOR SQUAD NO.VI, STAGTE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 540. 3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, MANJERI-676121. 4 THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ADDITIONAL BENCH, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE- 673032. 5 THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, JANATHA JUNCTION, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN-682025, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. -2- WP(C).No. 30262 of 2018 OTHER PRESENT: DR THUSHARA JAMES GP, SRI. GEORGE VARGHESE SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.09.2018, 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'), questioned the Ext.P1 order, before the 3rd respondent, who rejected it. Later, the petitioner approached the 4th respondent with a second appeal. In that appeal, it filed a stay petition, besides a delay condonation petition. The delay is said to be 99 days. The petitioner seems to have furnished bank guarantee for release of the goods detained. Now the petitioner complains that before the appellate forum could consider his interlocutory applications, the respondent authority is taking coercive steps.

This Court, after hearing the learned counsel on either side, disposes of this writ petition holding that the 4th respondent will consider the interlocutory applications, including the delay condonation petition, at the earliest, and pass orders, possibly, within one month.

-3- The respondent authority shall defer coercive steps until the 4th respondent considers the interlocutory applications. The authorities will refrain from encashing the bank guarantee, too, for the time being. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE das APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF NOTICE U/S. 47(2) OF THE KVAT ACT ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT, DEMANDING SECURITY DEPOSIT. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF BANK GUARANTEE SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TOWARDS SECURITY DEPOSIT FOR RELEASE OF DETAINED LAUNDRY MACHINE. EXHIBIT P3 COPHY OF ORDER DATED 22.7.2017 IMPOSING PENALTY U/S. 47(6) BY IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STATUTORY IST APPEAL DATED 23.10.2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT.P3 PENALTY. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF IST APPELLATE ORDER DATED 31.12.2017 PASSED BY 3RD RESPONDENT IN DISMISSING EXT. P4 APPEAL.

-4- EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF 2ND APPEAL DATED 11.9.2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE 4TH RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT.P5 APPELLATE ORDER. EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION FOR CONDONING DELAY OF 99 DAYS IN FILING EXT.P6 2ND APPEAL, SUBMITTED BEFORE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 A COPY OF AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION FOR STAY SUBMITTED ALONG WITH EXT.P6 APPEAL BEFORE 4TH RESPONDENT.