M/S Apple T.V And Home Appliances vs. State Tax Officer
Held
The Court condoned the delay of 80 days in filing the appeals before the 2nd respondent, deeming it appropriate given the circumstances. The Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider and pass reasoned orders on the stay petitions (Exts.P3 and P3(a)) within one month of receiving a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court ordered that recovery steps pursuant to the revenue recovery notices (Exts.P4 and P4(a)) for the amounts confirmed by the assessment orders (Exts.P1 and P1(a)) be kept in abeyance until the 2nd respondent passes orders on the stay petitions and communicates them to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish copies of the writ petition and the judgment to the 2nd respondent.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Apple T.V and Home Appliances, challenged assessment orders (Exts.P1 and P1(a)) issued under the KVAT Act. They filed appeals (Exts.P2 and P2(a)) along with stay petitions (Exts.P3 and P3(a)) before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the 2nd respondent. The petitioner contended that despite filing these appeals and stay petitions, the respondents initiated recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment orders. The delay in filing the appeals before the 2nd respondent was 80 days. The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Kerala.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay of 80 days in filing the appeals before the 2nd respondent should be condoned, considering the circumstances. 2. Whether recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment orders should be kept in abeyance pending the decision on the stay petitions. The petitioner argued that recovery steps were being taken prematurely, even before the stay petitions were considered. The petitioner sought condonation of delay and a direction to stay recovery proceedings. The respondents, represented by the Government Pleader, did not present specific arguments on the merits of the delay or the stay petitions in the provided text, but were represented in court.
Sections Cited
KVAT 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 THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1941 WP(C).No.29902 OF 2019(K) PETITIONER/S: M/S APPLE T.V AND HOME APPLIANCES, 28/132F,G,H,R S ROAD, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR-680307, REPRESENTED BY P.P.CHERIA, MG.PARTNER. BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.SOMAN SMT.T.RADHAMANY RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT CHALAKUDY- 680307. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES TAX COMPLEX, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR-680004. 3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX SGST KERALA, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR-680125. GOVERNMENT PLEADER DR.THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.29902 OF 2019(K) 2 JUDGMENT Against Exts.P1 and P1(a) assessment orders under the KVAT Act, the petitioner has preferred Exts.P2 and P2(a) appeals together with Exts.P3 and P3(a) stay petitions before the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that even prior to considering the stay petitions, recovery steps are taken by the respondents against the petitioner for reco
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.