Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 13137 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR
      WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 12570 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

           M/S.ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD., 40/6589, MG ROAD,

           COCHIN-682 035,

           REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,

           SRI. K ALEXANDER


           BY ADV TOMSON T.EMMANUEL,



RESPONDENT/S:

1          DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE-II, STATE GOODS AND
           SERVICES DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 015


2          JOINT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), STATE GOODS AND SERVICES
           DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 015

3          DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES DEPARTMENT,
           ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD 682 030

           SMT. DR. THUSHARA JAMES - GOVERNMENT PLEADER


THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 12570 OF 2021              2



                                JUDGMENT

Heard both sides.

2. As against the assessment order at Ext.P1 dated

30.03.2021, the petitioner has preferred the appeal at Ext.P2 along

with the stay petition at Ext.P4 and the application for condonation of

delay at Ext.P3. Grievance of the petitioner is to the effect that

despite pendency of the appeal along with stay petition and the

application for condonation of delay of 17 days, the respondents are

initiating the recovery proceedings for recovery of the amount

determined.

3. In the light of the fact that the appeal alongwith the stay

petition and the application for condonation of delay is pending with

the 2nd respondent, the writ petition is disposed of with the following

directions:-

The 2nd respondent is directed to decide the application for

condonation of delay and consequently, if required, the application for

stay within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment. Needless to mention that, the petitioner shall

co-operate with the 2nd respondent in expeditious disposal of these

applications along with the appeal also. Till disposal of the

application of condonation of delay and consequently, if required, the

stay application, the respondent shall not resort to recovery of the

amount determined as per the assessment order. The learned

Government Pleader to inform the respondents about this judgment,

for necessary compliance.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR JUDGE ajt

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 - TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.03.2021 COMPLETED BY 1ST RESPONDENT U/S.25(1) OF KVAT ACT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 EXHIBIT P2 - TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 10.06.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST EXHIBIT P1 ASSESSMENT ORDER EXHIBIT P3 - TRUE COPY OF PETITION FOR CONDONING DELAY SUBMITTED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P2 APPEAL BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 - TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION SUBMITTED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P2 APPEAL BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT