J.V.Gold, Gold Ornament Dealer vs. The Commercial Tax Officer-1
Held
The Court held that the petitioner should be granted time to prefer an appeal against Exts.P4 and P5. The Court reasoned that if the 3rd respondent were permitted to proceed with Ext.P6 Revenue Recovery Proceedings before the petitioner could avail the appellate remedy, the petitioner would be put in difficulty. Therefore, the Court directed that the petitioner be granted two weeks from the date of the judgment to prefer an appeal against Exts.P4 and P5. Consequently, Ext.P6 Revenue Recovery Proceedings were deferred for a period of four weeks to enable the petitioner to invoke the appellate remedy. The issue of the merits of the appeal against Exts.P4 and P5 was expressly left undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. J.V. Gold, an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, is aggrieved by proceedings (Ext.P4) issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals), Thrissur, directing modification and issuance of an assessment order. Following this, the State Tax Officer issued proceedings (Ext.P5) indicating a balance interest due of ₹5,63,305/-. The petitioner intended to challenge Exts.P4 and P5 before the appellate authority. However, the 3rd respondent initiated Revenue Recovery Proceedings (Ext.P6) while the petitioner sought time to prefer an appeal. The petitioner argued that proceeding with revenue recovery before the appeal could be filed would cause irreparable hardship and loss.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be granted a period of time to prefer an appeal against Exts.P4 and P5 before revenue recovery proceedings (Ext.P6) are pursued? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that if the 3rd respondent proceeds with Ext.P6 Revenue Recovery Proceedings before the petitioner can avail the appellate remedy against Exts.P4 and P5, the petitioner will be put to irreparable hardship and loss. The petitioner sought a 'breathing time' to file the appeal. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondents regarding the deferral of revenue recovery proceedings. The Government Pleader appeared for the respondents.
Sections Cited
Not specified
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 3RD POUSHA, 1941 WP(C).No.35779 OF 2019 PETITIONER/S: M/S.J.V.GOLD, GOLD ORNAMENT DEALER II/410-A, OPPOSITE ST.PAULS SCHOOL, KURIACHIRA THRISSUR, 680006, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR.VINSON P P BY ADVS. SMT.K.LATHA SMT.AYSHA RAHMAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-1 IV TH CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR- 680006. 2 THE SECRETARY THE VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, 6TH FLOOR, COMMERCIAL TAX COMPLEX, THEVARA ERNAKULAM, 682019. 3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX SGST DEPARTMENT, STATE TAX COMPLEX, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR-680004. SMT. M.M. JASMINE GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Dated this 24th day of December, 2019 The petitioner, who is an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, is aggrieved by Ext.P4 proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals), Thrissur, by which the assessing authority was directed to modify and issue assessment order. Pursuant to Ext.P4
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.