M/S.New Chemmannoor Stores vs. The Commercial Tax Officer

Held

The Court directed the second respondent (Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal) to consider and pass reasoned orders on the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P4) within two months of receiving a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court ordered that recovery steps pursuant to the demand notice (Ext.P5) for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until the Tribunal passes its orders on the stay petition and communicates them to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish copies of the writ petition and the judgment to the Tribunal for further action. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. New Chemmanoor Stores, is aggrieved by an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. An appeal preferred before the first appellate authority was dismissed (Ext.P2). Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal (Ext.P3) along with a stay petition (Ext.P4) before the second respondent, the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal. A demand notice (Ext.P5) was issued. The petitioner contends that recovery steps are being initiated for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order, even before the stay petition is considered. The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Kerala.

Key Issues

1. Whether the recovery steps initiated by the respondents are premature, given that the stay petition before the Appellate Tribunal is pending consideration? The petitioner argued that recovery proceedings were being pursued despite the pendency of their stay petition before the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal. They contended that the Tribunal should have had the opportunity to decide on the stay application before any coercive recovery measures were taken. The respondents, represented by the Government Pleader, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the premature nature of recovery steps. The judgment notes that the learned Government Pleader appeared for the respondents.