Wednesday vs State Tax Officer Reported In
2021 Latest Caselaw 11116 Ker

WP(C) 8717/2021                                 1/3



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                             Present:
                      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

                    Wednesday,the 7th day of April 2021/17th Chaithra, 1943
                                    WP(C) No.8717/2021(L)
PETITIONER
           For information purpose only
       M/S.MANAPPURAM JEWELLERS LTD
       4/522, 1ST FLOOR, MANAPPURAM HOUSE, VALAPPAD P.O.,
       THRISSUR-680567, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER,
       BASANT BHASKER.
RESPONDENTS
1.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX
     SGST DEPARTMENT, KERALA, SPECIAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR-680 004.
2.THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX,
     STATE GST DEPARTMENT, TAX TOWERs, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA,
     THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.

   Writ Petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed
along with the WP(C) the High Court be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to
Ext.P5 order issued by the 1st respondent, till final disposal of this Writ Petition(Civil).


   This petition coming on for admission upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in
support of WP(C) and upon hearing the arguments of M/S. HARISANKAR V. MENON &
MEERA V.MENON, Advocates for the petitioner and of GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
respondents 1 & 2, the court passed the following
 WP(C) 8717/2021                           2/3

                                  A.M.BADAR, J.
                                      -------------
                             WP(C) No.8717 of 2021
                                      -------------
                         Dated this the 7th day of April 2021

                                     ORDER

For information purpose only Heard both sides.

2. Notice before admission. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is barred by limitation. My attention is drawn to paragraph 15 of the pleadings in the writ petition to point out that the proceedings at Ext.P1 was only a proceedings for rejecting the refund application filed by the petitioner and therefore, the judgment in the matter of Baiju A.A and others vs. State Tax Officer reported in 2020(1) KHC 39 is squarely applicable to the facts of the case.

4. Learned Government Pleader submits that the order at Ext.P5 makes it clear that the first notice was issued on 16.07.2014 and the petitioner had tendered his reply to the said notice on 28.07.2014. Hence it cannot be said that the consequential proceedings in pursuant to the assessment order for the year 2013-2014 is barred by limitation. According to the learned Government Pleader, the remedy which can be availed by the petitioner is only that of statutory appeal and not by way of writ petition.

5. The respondents to file their statement by next date of hearing. Learned Government Pleader makes a statement that in the meanwhile, respondents shall not take coercive steps for recovery in pursuant to the notice of demand. The above statement is accepted. Post the matter after eight weeks.

Sd/-

A.M BADAR, JUDGE smp

/true copy/ Sd/-

 WP(C) 8717/2021                  3/3

                                                ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

EXHIBIT P1 - COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATED 16-07-2014 EXHIBIT P5 - COPY OF ORDER NO.32081104372/2013-14 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27-03-2021

For information purpose only