Kt Manoj Kumar vs The Kerala State Tax Officer (Ib)
2021 Latest Caselaw 17223 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
         FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 16646 OF 2021


PETITIONER:

              KT MANOJ KUMAR, PROPRIETOR, M/S. GAYATRI GRAND,
              OPP. GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, CHERPULASSERY, PALAKKAD.

              BY ADVS.
              HARISANKAR V. MENON
              MEERA V.MENON
              K.KRISHNA


RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE KERALA STATE TAX OFFICER (IB), WORKS CONTRACT,
              STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT,
              PALAKKAD - 678001.

     2        THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
              CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673032,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST.SECRETARY.

              BY SR. GP SMT.THUSHARA JAMES


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 16646/21
                                     2



                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court

alleging that, in spite of the fact that he has

preferred Ext.P3 appeal and Ext.P4 stay petition

before the 2nd respondent-Kerala Value Added Tax

Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as

'the Tribunal' for short), the 1st respondent is

now taking hasty steps for recovery based on

Ext.P1 assessment.

2. In response, the learned Senior

Government Pleader - Smt.Thushara James, submitted

that if the petitioner only requires Ext.P4 stay

petition to be considered by the Tribunal, her

clients will not stand in the way; but prayed this

Court may fix a very short time frame.

3. Taking note of the afore submissions and

since I am of the view that it will be unjust for

any recovery to be taken forward when Ext.P4 stay WPC 16646/21

petition is pending before the Tribunal, I deem it

appropriate to allow this Writ Petition to that

extent.

Resultantly, I order this Writ Petition,

directing the 2nd respondent to take up Ext.P4 stay

petition of the petitioner and dispose it of,

after affording an opportunity of being heard to

him - either physically or through video-

conferencing - as expeditiously as is possible,

but not later than two months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Needless to say, until such time as the afore

exercise is completed and the resultant order

communicated to the petitioner, all action for

recovery based on Ext.P1 shall be deferred by the

1st respondent.

Sd/-

RR                                          DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                                  JUDGE
 WPC 16646/21


               APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16646/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1        COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST

RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12.

Exhibit P2 COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) I, KOZHIKODE.

Exhibit P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12.

Exhibit P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.