Moolans Family Mart vs. State Tax Officer - Kerala High Court, 08 May 2018

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MAY 2018 / 18TH VAISAKHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 15483 of 2018 PETITIONER: MOOLANS FAMILY MART, MOOLANS SQUARE, XXV/681,MAIN ROAD, SOUTH CHALAKUDY, PIN 680 307,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. JOSE MOOLAN. BY ADV.SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): 1. STATE TAX OFFICER -II, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, CHALAKUDY, PIN-680 307. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES COMPLEX, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR PIN 680 004. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIOENER OF STATE TAX, SGST KERALA, IRINJALAKUDA, PIN-680 125. R1 TO R3 BY ADV.SRI. MANURAJ K.J., GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-05-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: UU WP(C).No. 15483 of 2018 (I) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24-03-2018 FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 19-04-2018 AGAINST EXT.P1 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 19-04-2018 IN EXT. P2 APPEAL EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 03-05-2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE UU ANU SIVARAMAN, J. =================== W.P.(C).No.15483 of 2018 ==================== Dated this the 8th day of May, 2018

J U D G M E N T The petitioner, a registered dealer is aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order issued under the KVAT Act. The petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal before the second respondent. The petitioner has also moved for stay of recovery proceedings pending the same by way of Ext.P3 stay petition. The writ petition is filed aggrieved by the revenue recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader and having considered the contentions advanced, I am of the opinion that the recovery proceedings should await the result of the consideration of the application moved for stay in the statutory appeal.

There will be a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on the stay petition evidenced by Ext.P3 with notice to all parties, within a period of two months from today. The revenue recovery proceedings initiated, if any,

W.P.(C).No.15483 of 2018 2 against the petitioner will be kept in abeyance till final orders are passed on the stay petition. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the appellate authority for compliance. ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE rmm //// P.A. To Judge