Mr.Ajayakumar P.A. vs. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) - Kerala High Court, 18 July 2018

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 24071 of 2018 PETITIONER: MR.AJAYAKUMAR P.A.(PROPRIETOR), M/S. AYURVEDA YOGA VILA (THE KURUVA RESORT), PALVELICHAM, BAVALI P.O, WAYANAD - 670 646. BY ADVS.SRI.A.KUMAR SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR SMTG.MINI(1748) SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. 2. STATE TAX OFFICER(LUXURY TAX), O/O. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, WAYANAD, KALPETTA - 673 121. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPT, KERALA, WAYANAD, KALPETTA - 673 121. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER DR.THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24071 of 2018 (H) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24/03/2018. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 26/04/2018. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY DATED 26/04/2018. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE RECOVERY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 18/06/2018. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL --------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE sp DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. ========================= W.P.(C) No.24071 of 2018 ========================= Dated this the 18th day of July 2018

JUDGMENT The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act on the rolls of the 2nd respondent, questioned Ext.P1 assessment order before the 1st respondent. The petitioner has also filed a stay petition along with the appeal. Ventilating its grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition, 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 his statutory remedy of filing an appeal. It appears that he has also filed a stay petition. Procedural fairness demands that the W.P.(C) No.24071 of 2018 2 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 respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 1st respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the 1st respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE