BharatTaxGST

K.Jacob vs. The Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal

Original PDF →
WP(C)/24241/2018HC KeralaGSTCNR KLHC01055828201819 July 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU4 pages

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 24241 of 2018 PETITIONER K.JACOB VADAKKEDATHU VEEDU, VETTIKKAVALA, KOTTARAKKARA BY ADVS.SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR SMT.P.LISSY JOSE. SMT.ANJANA.S.SANTHOSH RESPONDENTS 1. THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) (I), STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, BAPPUJI NAGAR, ASRAMOM, KOLLAM-691 002 3. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WORKS CONTRACT) COMMERCIAL TAXES, COMMERCIAL TAX COMPLEX, ASRAMOM, KOLLAM-691 002 4. TEH TAHSILDAR (RR) TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA-691 506 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER DR. THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: mks WP(C).No. 24241 of 2018 (E) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 3/9/2013 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13/4/2018 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 22/5/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 22/5/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE mks 24/07/2018 DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No. 24241 of 2018 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2018

JUDGMENT The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('KVAT Act' for short), questioned Ext.P1 assessment order before the first respondent. The petitioner has also filed a stay petition in the Ext.P3 appeal. Ventilating his grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition and the appeal, 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 his statutory remedy of filing an appeal. It appears that he has also filed a stay petition. Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the WPC No.24241 of 2018 2 respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the first respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the first respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE css/

Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.