G. Soman vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax

Facts

The petitioner, G. Soman, proprietor of Hotel Rohini and Hotel Akash, is aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment and Ext.P4 rectified assessment order for the assessment year 2021-22. He filed an appeal (Ext.P2) before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), the second respondent, and a stay petition (Ext.P3) against the assessment orders. The petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings from the authorities before his stay petition is considered. Consequently, he filed this writ petition before the High Court seeking relief.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition could be disposed of with a direction. The second respondent, the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), was directed to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P3) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Until a decision is taken on the stay petition, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner concerning the assessment order (Ext.P1) and the rectified assessment order (Ext.P4) shall be kept in abeyance. The Court found it appropriate to grant this interim relief pending the decision on the stay petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the consideration of his stay petition before coercive proceedings are initiated against him, under the relevant provisions of the GST Act and Rules, considering the pendency of his appeal. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that he has filed an appeal and a stay petition against the assessment orders. He apprehends coercive proceedings before the stay petition is decided, which would cause irreparable hardship. Therefore, he sought a direction from the Court to consider his stay petition expeditiously and to keep coercive proceedings in abeyance until a decision on the stay is taken. Respondent's Contention: The judgment records submissions from the counsel for the respondents, but does not detail their specific arguments regarding the petitioner's entitlement to the relief sought. It only states that the Court considered the submissions of both parties.