Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1940
WP(C).No. 25096 of 2018
PETITIONER(S)
SINGER INDIA LIMITED,
10/666, MOIDEEN PALLI ROAD, CALICUT-673001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER SRI. P.SREEKUMAR.
BY ADV.SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR
RESPONDENT(S):
1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
SPECIAL CIRCLE-II, GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT,
KERALA, KOZHIKODE-673006.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),
COMMERCIAL TAXES,
NIRMAL ARCADE BUILDINGS,
ERANJIPALAM KOZHIKODE-673006.
3. THE SALES TAX OFFICER(RECOVERY)
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE-673006.
R1-R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER DR. THUSHARA JAMES
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RVS.
WP(C).No. 25096 of 2018 (J)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30-04-2018 FOR
THE YEAR 2003-04 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 11-07-2018
AGAINST EXT.P1.
EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION DATED
11-07-2018 IN EXT.P2 APPEAL.
EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 11.07.2018 IN EXT
P2 APPEAL.
EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF THE POSTING NOTICE DATED 16-07-2018
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6; COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED
21-07-2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
NIL.
/TRUE COPY/
P.S. TO JUDGE
RVS.
30/07/32018
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
==============================================
W.P.(C). No. 25096 of 2018
=======================================================
Dated this the 26th day of July, 2018
JUDGMENT The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('KVAT Act') on the rolls of the 1st respondent, questioned Ext.P1 assessment order before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has also filed a stay petition in the appeal. Ventilating his grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3.I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time its statutory remedy of filing an 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 -2- W.P.(C). No. 25096 of 2018 appellate authority decides on the stay petition. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 2nd respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the 2nd respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE
