M/S Cee Pee Marbles & Granites vs. The Intelligence Officer (Ib) - Kerala High Court, 12 March 2018

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 8323 of 2018 PETITIONER M/S CEE PEE MARBLES & GRANITES CEE PEE COMPLEX, MANNUR POST, KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. YOONUS SALEEM C.P BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH SRI.P.JINISH PAUL KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY SRI.ASISH MOHAN SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR (MALLYA) SMT.MARY JOSSY SRI.ACHYUT K PADMARAJ RESPONDENTS 1. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (IB) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE)] STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE 673 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE 673 001 3. SALES TAX OFFICER(RECOVERY) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT,KOZHIKODE 673 006 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 8323 of 2018 (M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03-03-2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE SD P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ================== W.P.(C.) No.8323 of 2018 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2018

JUDGMENT Challenging Ext.P1 order imposing penalty under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the second respondent. Ext.P3 is the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in the appeal. It is stated that proceedings have already been initiated for realisation of the amounts covered by the order impugned in the appeal. The grievance of the petitioner, in the circumstances, concerns the delay on the part of the appellate authority in deciding the appeal.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as also the orders passed by this Court in similar and W.P.(C.) No. 8323/2018 2 identical matters, the writ petition is disposed of directing the appellate authority to consider and pass orders on the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in the appeal, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Needless to say that till orders are passed on the application for stay, further proceedings for realization of the amounts covered by the order impugned in the appeal shall be deferred by the respondent concerned. P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE