S. Aneeshlal vs. The State Tax Officer
Held
The Court directed the 2nd respondent, the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals), to consider and pass reasoned orders on the petitioner's delay condonation petition (Ext.P3) and stay petition (Ext.P4) within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court further ordered that recovery steps pursuant to the revenue recovery notice (Ext.P5) shall be kept in abeyance until the 2nd respondent passes the aforementioned orders and communicates them to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish copies of the writ petition and the judgment to the 2nd respondent for further action. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself, but focused on the procedural aspect of ensuring the pending applications are considered.
Facts
The petitioner, S. Aneeshulal, proprietor of Lal Stationery, filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court. The petition was filed against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The petitioner had preferred an appeal (Ext.P2) along with a delay condonation petition (Ext.P3) and a stay petition (Ext.P4) before the 2nd respondent, the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals). Meanwhile, the petitioner received a revenue recovery notice (Ext.P5). The petitioner's primary prayer was for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the stay petition and to keep recovery steps in abeyance.
Key Issues
1. Whether the 2nd respondent should be directed to consider and pass reasoned orders on the delay condonation petition (Ext.P3) and the stay petition (Ext.P4)? The petitioner argued for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the pending delay condonation and stay petitions, and to keep recovery steps in abeyance until such orders are passed. The petitioner sought this relief to ensure that their appeal is considered on merits without coercive recovery action being taken prematurely. The revenue, represented by the Government Pleader, did not appear to have raised any specific arguments against this procedural request, as the Court proceeded to dispose of the writ petition based on the submissions made.
Sections Cited
Kerala Value Added Tax Act
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 TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019/26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941 W.P(C).No.34483 OF 2019 PETITIONER: S. ANEESHLAL, AGED 44 YEARS PROPRIETOR, LAL STATIONERY, PUNNAPRA MARKET, PUNNAPRA P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 688 004. BY ADV. SRI.P.H.RIYAS RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER, SGST DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, MELUVALLIL BUILDING, IRON BRIDGE P.O., KOLLAM - 688 011. 3 THE DEPUTY THAHSILDAR (RR), AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. BY SMT.M.M.JASMINE, GOVT. PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.34483/2019 J U D G M E N T Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal together with Ext.P3 delay condonation petition and also Ext.P4 stay petition before the 2nd respondent. Ext.P5 is the revenue recovery notice issued to the petitioner. The limited prayer of the 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.