Pure Flames Appliances Private Limited vs. The Commercial Tax Officer - Kerala High Court, 14 February 2018

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 25TH MAGHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 4872 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) ------------- PURE FLAMES APPLIANCES PRIVATE LIMITED, DOOR NO.50/1222G, 1ST FLOOR, JAWAN CROSS ROAD, NEAR EDAPPALLY RAILWAY GATE, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI - 682 041, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI. ATUL BATRA. BY ADVS.SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.M.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 1ST CIRCLE, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 015. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: TS WP(C).No. 4872 of 2018 (H) -------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24-11-2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-2017 UNDER THE CST ACT. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM AGAINST EXT.P1 ORDER FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE PETITION FOR CONDONING DELAY FILED IN EXT P2 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION IN EXT.P2 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 03.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER THE RR ACT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS - NIL ------------------------------ /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE TS P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ...................................................... W.P.(C).No.4872 of 2018 ...................................................... Dated this the 14th day of February, 2018

JUDGMENT Challenging Ext.P1 assessment order under the Cental Sales Tax Act (the Act), the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the second respondent. There was a delay of 32 days in filing the appeal. Ext.P3 is the application preferred by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the appeal and Ext.P4 is the application preferred by the petitioner in the appeal for stay. 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 in disposing of the appeal.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. Since the delay in filing the appeal is only 32 days, having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the appellate authority to condone the delay in filing the appeal and pass orders on the application for stay, within one month

W.P.(C).No.4872 of 2018 : 2 : from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. 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 respondents concerned. P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE hmh