M/S Creotech Engineers vs The State Tax Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 5077 Ker

O.P.(Tax) No.6 of 2021        1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

                                     &

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

    THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 22ND MAGHA,1942

                         OP (TAX).No.6 OF 2021

 AGAINST THE ORDER IN TA(VAT)No.749/2019 OF KERALA VAT APPELLATE
                       TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM


PETITIONER:

               M/S CREOTECH ENGINEERS
               GREEN HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI, PIN-682 006,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI. AUGUSTINE
               JACKSON.

               BY ADV. SMT.O.A.NURIYA

RESPONDENTS:

       1       THE STATE TAX OFFICER
               STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT,
               MATTANCHERY, ERNAKULAM, PIN-683 101.

       2       THE STATE TAX OFFICER (APPEALS),
               S.G.S.T. DEPARTMENT, STATE TAX COMPLEX, THEVARA,
               ERNAKULAM-682 015.

       3       THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
               ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
               SECRETARY, KERALA, PIN-682 015.


OTHER PRESENT:

               SR GP MOHAMMED RAFIQ

     THIS OP TAX HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.02.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 O.P.(Tax) No.6 of 2021          2




                                    JUDGMENT

Dated this the 11th day of February 2021 S.V.Bhatti, J.

Heard Adv.O.A.Nuria for petitioner and Sr.G.P.Mohammed Rafiq for

respondents.

2. The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order, the Tribunal through Ext.P6,

firstly, noted that the defects pointed out by the office of Appellate Tribunal are

not attended to and the deficit court fee, payable by the petitioner in T.A.(VAT)

No.749 of 2019 was not paid. Added to the above two omissions there was no

representation for petitioner on 30.3.2020. The Tribunal, hence, rejected T.A.

(VAT) No.749 of 2019.

3. Advocate for petitioner does not contest the correctness of observations

made by the Tribunal, but prays for the indulgence of this Court to grant two

more weeks time from today to pay deficit court fee and also to cure other

defects noted by the office which are remaining unattended as on date.

4. In our view, the appeal before the Tribunal is a valuable right, to meet

the ends of justice and to enable the petitioner to work out the remedy of appeal,

Petition stands allowed by this judgment.

a) Petitioner is given two weeks time from today to deposit the

deficit court fee and cure other defects which are remaining

unattended as on date.

b) The Tribunal restores the appeal to file and disposes of the

appeal on merits.

Sd/-

S.V.BHATTI

JUDGE

Sd/-

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

JUDGE

css/

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THE PERIOD 2013-14 DATED 3.5.2016

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER DATED 29.6.2019

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND APPEAL FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATED 19.11.2019 PENDING BEFORE 3RDF RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FOR STAY OF COLLECTION OF TAX/INTEREST PENDING BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATE 19.11.2019

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FOR DELAY COCNDONATION PENDING BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATED 19.11.2019

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TRIBUNAL DATED 13.3.2020