M/S. Phoenix Agencies vs. Commercial Tax Officer-Iii - Kerala High Court, 30 August 2018

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY ,THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 8TH BHADRA, 1940 WP(C).No. 26199 of 2018 PETITIONER: M/S. PHOENIX AGENCIES KALLOOKKARAN BUILDINGS, KIDANGOOR, ANGAMALY,REP. BY ITS MG.DIRECTOR, P.M SUNIL KUMAR. BY ADV. SRI. SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR RESPONDENTS 1 COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-III DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ANGAMALY-683572. 2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER APPEALS-I STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT,ERNAKULAM- 682018. 3 THE BRANCH MANAGER CANARA BANK, CHALAKUDY BRANCH-683307. 4 THE BRANCH MANAGER DENA BANK, ANGAMALY BRANCH, KPB PRIME TRADE CENTRE,T B ROAD, ANGAMALY-683752. BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.ROJO JOSEPH THURUTHIPARA, SC, DENA BANK SRI. JOSON MANAVALAN SRI. K. JOHN MATHAI SRI. KURYAN THOMAS SRI. PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI. P. GOPINATH SRI.ROJO JOSEPH THURUTHIPARA SC DENA BANK OTHER PRESENT: DR THUSHARA JAMES GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.08.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. ================================== W.P.(C).No.26199 of 2018 =================================== Dated this the 30th day of August, 2018

JUDGMENT The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('KVAT Act' for short) on the rolls of the 1st respondent, questioned the Exts.P1, P2, P5 and P6 orders before the 2nd respondent. The assessing authority has issued the Exts.P5 and P6 prohibitory orders to the banks concerned to freeze the petitioner's accounts, based on the original assessment order. Ventilating its grievance that if the prohibitory orders are continued to operate before the assessment order attains finality, it will face irreparable injury and hardship, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, with a prayer to quash the orders of attachment.

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

I reckon the petitioner has exercised its statutory remedy of filing an appeal. Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority considers the Ext.P4 appeal. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the W.P.(C).No.26199 of 2018 -2- respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the authority considers the Ext.P4 appeal. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14, COMPLETED VIDE THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 02.09.2016 U/S. 25(1) OF THE KAVT ACT AND RELEVANT RULES EXHIBIT P2OF THE ORDER NO. KVATA 3418/16 DATED 22.03.2018 EXHIBIT P3OF THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT PREFFRED BY THE PETITIONER DULY PREPARED BY THE AUDITOR EXHIBIT P4OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM AGAINST THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO. 3418/2016 EXHIBIT P5OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER NO. F (RR) 351/16-17 & 1539/17-18 DATED 27.07.2018 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER NO. F (RR) 351/16-17 & 1539/17-18 DATED 18.07.2018 ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL //// P.A. To Judge