M/S Sigrun Periyar Theeram vs. Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)
Held
The Court held that the delay of 295 days in filing the appeal was appropriate to condone. The reasoning was based on the relatively short period of delay and the fact that the petitioner had filed a condonation petition. The Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider and pass reasoned orders on the petitioner's stay petition within one month of receiving a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Crucially, the Court ordered that recovery steps pursuant to the demand notice (Ext.P1) for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order (Ext.P2) be kept in abeyance until the 2nd respondent passes orders on the stay petition and communicates them to the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that revenue recovery should be deferred when an appeal and stay petition are pending before the appellate authority, especially when there is a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the appeal.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Sigrun Periyar Theeram, is challenging an assessment order (Ext.P2) passed under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The petitioner had filed an appeal (Ext.P3), a stay petition (Ext.P4), and a delay condonation petition (Ext.P5) before the 2nd respondent (State Assistant Commissioner). However, the petitioner alleges that recovery steps were initiated (Ext.P1 revenue recovery notice) even before the stay petition was considered. The delay in filing the appeal was 295 days.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay of 295 days in filing the appeal before the 2nd respondent should be condoned, considering the facts and circumstances. The petitioner argued that the delay was unintentional and that they had filed the necessary condonation petition. The respondents did not record any specific argument against condoning the delay. 2. Whether recovery steps should be stayed pending the disposal of the stay petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that recovery should not be initiated while their appeal and stay petition are pending adjudication. The respondents did not present any counter-argument on this point.
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 WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1941 WP(C).No.28140 OF 2019(N) PETITIONER: M/S SIGRUN PERIYAR THEERAM XII/27, EAST DESOM, ALUVA-683103, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SMT.SUMITHA MATHEW BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR RESPONDENTS: 1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SGST DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM-682015 2 STATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SGST DEPARTMENT, ERNAKUJLAM AT CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD- 682030 3 STATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SGST DEPARTMENT ERNAKULAM AT CIVIL STATION KAKKANAD-682030 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.28140 OF 2019(N) 2 JUDGMENT Against Ext.P2 assessment order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 appeal, Ext.P4 stay petition together with Ext.P5 delay condonation petition before the 2nd respondent. Ext.P1 is the revenue recovery notice. It is the case of the petitioner that even prior to considering the stay petition, recovery steps are taken by the respondents against
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.