Vijayalakshmi Amma C.R. vs. The State Commissioner Of State Goods And Service Tax Department - Kerala High Court, 20 August 2018

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU MONDAY ,THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1940 WP(C).No. 28016 of 2018 PETITIONER/S: VIJAYALAKSHMI AMMA C.R., AGED 60 YEARS MURUGAPPA BODY BUILDERS, PADINJATTINKARA, NEELISWARAM, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLA 691505 BY ADV. BOBBY JOHN RESPONDENT/S: 1. THE STATE COMMISSIONER OF STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT TAX TOWER, KILLIPPLLAM, KARAMANA, THIRUVANATHAPURAM 695002 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, (NOW STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT), KOLLAM 691 002 3 THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WORKS CONTRACT), COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, (NOW STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT) KOLLAM 691 002 4 KERALA STATE VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 BY ADV. OTHER PRESENT: Dr.THushara James, GP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.08.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 28016 of 2018 (B) ------------------------------------------ Dated: 20th August, 2018

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 Exts.P1 and P1A assessment orders, before the second respondent. It resulted in the Exts.P2 and P2A orders.

The petitioner again challenged the Exts.P2 and P2A orders in the second appeal, before the Appellate Tribunal, the fourth respondent. The petitioner, in the appeals, filed stay petitions, too. Ventilating her grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petitions in the appeals, 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 her statutory remedy of filing second appeals. It appears that she has also filed stay

petitions. Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay petitions. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition, directing the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the fourth respondent considers the stay petitions. I also hope that the fourth respondent will dispose of the stay petitions expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU Judge jjj 20/08/2018

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2010-11, DATED 17.03.2016, PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 AOF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2011-12, DATED 17.03.2016, PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2OF THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2010-11, DATED 25.04.2018, PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 AOF THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2011-12, DATED 25.04.2018, PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3OF THE SECOND APPEAL FOR THE YEAR 2010-11, DATED 09.07.2018, FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 AOF THE SECOND APPEAL FOR THE YEAR 2011-12, DATED 09.07.2018, FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4OF THE STAY APPLICATION FOR THE YEAR 2010-11, DATED 09.07.2018, FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 AOF THE STAY APPLICATION FOR THE YEAR 2011-12, DATED 09.07.2018, FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FOURTH RESPONDENT.