Abu Tahir(Proprietor) vs The State Tax Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 4868 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

    WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 21ST MAGHA,1942

                       WP(C).No.3417 OF 2021(B)


PETITIONER:

               ABU TAHIR(PROPRIETOR)
               M/S. MIZAJ RESTAURATN, THATTAMPADY, KARUMALLOOR,
               ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 511.

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

RESPONDENTS:

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

      2        THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),
               STATE GST DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM-682 015.

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


OTHER PRESENT:

               SMT.THUSHARA JAMES, GOVT. PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.3417/2021               2


                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 10th day of February 2021

Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued

that challenging the order of assessment under Kerala Value Added

Tax Act, Ext.P1, the petitioner has preferred a statutory appeal,

Ext.P2 along with a stay petition, Ext.P3. However, during the

pendency of the stay application filed by the petitioner, authorities

under the respondents are taking action for recovering the demand

issued in pursuant to the assessment order.

2. Learned Government Pleader opposed the writ petition.

3. In the light of the fact that the statutory appeal along with

stay application is still pending consideration of the respondent-

Joint Commissioner, I am of the considered opinion that the

respondent-authorities ought not to have initiated proceedings for

recovery in pursuant to the demand raised. Hence this writ petition

is disposed of with the following directions:

The respondent-Joint Commissioner is directed to decide the

stay petition, Ext.P3, if already not decided, within a period of six

weeks from the date of communication of this judgment. The

petitioner to co-operate the respondent-Joint Commissioner in

expeditious disposal of the stay petition, Ext.P3. In the meanwhile,

till disposal of the stay petition at Ext.P3, respondents shall not

take steps for effecting recovery in pursuant to the demand raised

according to the assessment order at Ext.P1.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR

JUDGE

smp

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.A 567/18/16-17 (MODIFIED) DATED 31.12.2020 FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 20.01.2021 FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 20.01.2021 FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

True Copy

P.S to Judge

smp