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. 26225 of 2018 PETITIONER/S: M/S. PHOENIX AGENCIES KALLOOKKARAN BUILDINGS, KIDANGOOR, ANGAMALY, REP. BY ITS MG. DIRECTOR, P.M. SUNIL KUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR RESPONDENT/S: 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 - 680307. 4 THE BRANCH MANAGER DENA BANK, ANGAMALLY BRANCH, KPB PRIME TRADE CENTRE, T.B. ROAD, ANGAMALY - 683572. 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, ALONG WITH WP(C).26199/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 26225 of 2018 2

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 Ext.P1 order before the 2nd respondent. Later, unsuccessful before the second respondent, the petitioner filed the second appeal before the Tribunal.

The assessing authority, in the meanwhile, has issued the Exts.P4 and P5 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. He has also filed a stay petition in the appeal. Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority considers the Ext.P3 appeal. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the WP(C).No. 26225 of 2018 3 respondent authority to defer coercive steps in continuing with Exts.P5 and P6 prohibitory orders until the authority considers the stay petition in the Ext.P3 appeal. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16, COMPLETED VIDE THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 19.10.2016 U/S 25(1) OF THE KVAT ACT AND RELEVANT RULES. EXHIBIT P2OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO.KVATA.282/17 DATED 22.3.2018. EXHIBIT P3OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BEFORE THE VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM AGAINST THE EXT.P2 ORDER. EXHIBIT P4OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER NO.F(RR)351/16-17 & 1539/17-18 DATED 27.7.2018 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER NO.F(RR) 351/16-17 & 1539/17-18 DATED 18.7.2018 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL //// P.A. TO JUDGE