Abu Tahir vs The Intelligence Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 4363 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

     FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 16TH MAGHA,1942

                       WP(C).No.2909 OF 2021(K)


PETITIONER:

               ABU TAHIR,
               AGED 32 YEARS,
               M/S. MIZAJ RESTAURANT,
               THATTAMPADY, KARUMALLOOR,
               ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI. P. N. DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI
               SRI. HRITHWIK D. NAMBOOTHIRI

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER,
               SQUAD NO.2,
               DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
               MATTANCHERRY AT KARUKUTY - 683 576.

      2        THE STATE TAX OFFICER,
               STATE GST DEPARTMENT,
               N. PARAVUR - 683 513.

      3        THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),
               STATE GST DEPARTMENT,
               ERNAKULAM - 682 015.

      4        THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,
               TALUK OFFICE,
               PARAVUR TALUK - 683 513.


               SMT. THUSHARA JAMES, GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.2909 OF 2021

                                        2




                                   JUDGMENT

Dated this the 5th day of February 2021

Heard both sides.

2. The only grievance of the petitioner is to the effect

that despite pendency of his appeal and stay petition

challenging the order imposing penalty, the respondents are

initiated proceedings for recovery of the amount of penalty.

3. The learned Government Pleader opposed the

petition.

4. As the statutory appeal along with stay petition

Exts.P2 and P3 filed by the petitioner challenging the order

imposing penalty on him are still pending with the 3 rd

respondent.

I am of the considered opinion that, the respondents are

not justified in taking action for recovery of the amount under

the order imposing penalty. Hence, the writ petition is

disposed of with the following direction:-

i. The 3rd respondent to consider and decide the stay WP(C).No.2909 OF 2021

petition at Ext.P3 filed by the petitioner after granting

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, according to law as

expeditiously as possible, in any case, within a period of six

weeks from the date of this judgment and till disposal of that

stay petition, respondents shall not continue proceedings for

recovery of penalty order at Ext.P2.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR JUDGE

SPR WP(C).No.2909 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER NO.

ISM/II/63/2016-17 DATED 16.12.2020 (MODIFIED) FOR THE YEAR, 2016-17 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 09.01.2021 FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 09.01.2021 FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL.