M/S.Cube It Solutions vs The Deputy Commissioner ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5234 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

     FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 23RD MAGHA,1942

                       WP(C).No.3671 OF 2021(H)


PETITIONER:

               M/S.CUBE IT SOLUTIONS,
               VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. SREEKUMAR.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.S.JATHIN DAS
               SRI.T.A.PRAKASH
               SMT.S.SOUMYA ISSAC

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),
               STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002.

      2        THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
               1ST CIRCLE, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT,
               4TH FLOOR, TAX TOWER, KARAMANA,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.


OTHER PRESENT:

               SMT.THUSHARA JAMES, GOVT. PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.3671/2021              2


                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12th day of February 2021

Heard both sides. The petitioner challenged the order at

Ext.P1 as well as the demand notice at Ext.P2 by filing a statutory

appeal, Ext.P3, before the 1st respondent. The appeal along with

stay petition is pending for hearing before the 1st respondent. The

grievance of the petitioner is to the effect that despite pendency

of the stay petition at Ext.P4 in the statutory appeal, respondents

are resorting to recover the amount demanded as per demand

notice at Ext.P2.

2. Learned Government Pleader opposed the writ petition.

3. I have considered the submissions so advanced and

perused the materials placed before me. The assessment order is

challenged by filing statutory appeal wherein an application for

stay is also moved by the petitioner. In this view of the matter,

the respondents ought not to have resorted to revenue recovery

proceedings atleast till disposal of the stay petition filed by the

petitioner. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the

following directions:

The 1st respondent to decide the stay petition, Ext.P4, filed

in the statutory appeal Ext.P3 challenging the assessment order

by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of

communication of this judgment. The petitioner shall co-operate

the 1st respondent in disposing the stay petition. Till disposal of

the stay petition, respondents are restrained from effecting

recovery of the demand reflected in the demand notice at Ext.P2.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR

JUDGE

smp

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27/11/2020 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 27/11/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12/01/2021.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR STAY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12/01/2021.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

True Copy

P.S to Judge

smp