M/S Joy Alukkas INDIA (P) LTD. vs. State Tax Officer
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Joy Alukkas India (P) Ltd., is challenging penalty orders (Exts.P1 to P7) and rectified orders. The petitioner filed appeals (Exts.P8 to P11), stay petitions (Exts.P12 to P15), and delay condonation petitions (Exts.P16 to P19) before the 3rd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax. The delay in filing the appeals was 37 days. The petitioner sought an out-of-turn hearing due to the substantial amounts involved. The petitioner has presented the case before the High Court of Kerala.
Held
The Court found the delay of 37 days to be marginal. Consequently, the Court deemed it appropriate to condone the delay. The 3rd respondent (Deputy Commissioner of State Tax) is directed to consider and pass reasoned orders on the stay petitions (Exts.P12 to P15) within three months from the date of the order, after hearing the petitioner. Recovery steps for the amounts confirmed against the petitioner in the impugned orders are to be kept in abeyance until orders are passed on the stay applications and communicated to the petitioner. Following the decision on the stay applications, the 3rd respondent shall also consider the petitioner's request for an out-of-turn hearing of the appeal, if the petitioner requires it at that stage. The petitioner is to provide a copy of the writ petition and the judgment to the 3rd respondent.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay of 37 days in filing the appeals before the 3rd respondent should be condoned, considering the petitioner's request for an out-of-turn hearing due to the large amounts involved. Petitioner's argument: The delay is marginal (37 days) and the petitioner has also filed a petition for out-of-turn hearing, highlighting the significant financial implications of the appeals. The petitioner seeks a direction for the 3rd respondent to consider and pass reasoned orders on the stay petitions and appeals promptly. Respondents' argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondents regarding the delay or the stay petitions.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THUR AY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2020 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1942 WP(C).No.14944 OF 2020 PETITIONER: M/S JOY ALUKKAS INDIA (P) LTD. THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680005 REPRESENTED BY ITS DGM- FINANCE & TAXATION SRI.TOME JOSE BY ADVS. SRI.A.KUMAR SRI.P.J.ANILKUMAR SMTG.MINI(1748) SRI.P.S.SREE PRASAD SHRI.JOB ABRAHAM SRI.AJAY V.ANAND RESPONDENTS: 1 2 3 STATE TAX OFFICER SQUAD 1, SGST DEPARTMENT POOTHOLE, THRISSUR-680004 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (INT) SPECIAL-1, ERNAKULAM-682015 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX SPECIAL-1, ERNAKULAM-682015 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER DR.THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C).No.14944 of 2020 2 JUDGMENT Against Exts.P1 to P7 penalty orders and rectified orders, the petitioner has preferred Exts.P8 to P11 appeals, Exts.P12 to P15 stay petitions and Exts.P16 to P19 delay condonation petitions before the 3rd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the delay occasioned is only marginal (37 days) and the petitioner has also preferred a petit
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.