Kerala High Court
Anand Vijayakumar vs The State Tax Officer-1 (Wc) on 3 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.3193 OF 2021(Y)
PETITIONER:
ANAND VIJAYAKUMAR
PROPRIETOR, M/S. SAI ENGINEERING, 10/544, KANNADI,
THANNEERPANDAL, KINASSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON
SMT.MEERA V.MENON
SMT.K.KRISHNA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER-1 (WC),
STATE GST DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD-678001.
2 THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX /
AGRI. INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
ADDITIONAL BENCH, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673032,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT SECRETARY.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.THUSHARA JAMES, GOVT. PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.3193/2021 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 3rd day of March 2021
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at sufficient
length of time. She argued that the petitioner has filed statutory
appeals under Section 60 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act before
the Appellate Tribunal and the said Tribunal was pleased to allow
the applications for stay made by the petitioner in the statutory
appeals by holding that the petitioner has made out prima facie
and arguable case in appeal. It is further argued that the learned
Tribunal, however, committed an error by holding that the
petitioner as appellant is liable to deposit 30% of the disputed
demand as condition for grant of stay. Learned counsel for the
petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in
W.P.(C) No.27395 of 2019 decided on 15.10.2019. It is argued
that the impugned order granting stay is bereft of reasons for
directing the petitioner to deposit 30% of the disputed demand.
2. Learned Government Pleader opposed the writ petition.
3. I have considered the submissions so advanced and
perused the impugned order. The impugned order is an
interlocutory order granting stay to the petitioner on condition
that the petitioner should deposit 30% of the disputed demand.
The appeal is challenging the demand raised by the respondents.
Ultimately, the subject matter of appeal is the liability of the
petitioner towards monetary dues and one of the conditions which
govern the subject matter is whether the petitioner is going to
suffer irreparable loss. When a party can be compensated in
terms of money, it cannot be a case of suffering irreparable loss.
Be that as it may, the learned Tribunal, while deciding the
stay petition has observed that, for granting stay to the impugned
disputed demand, interest of revenue is required to be considered
and in that premises, it has proceeded to direct the petitioner to
deposit 30% of the disputed demand apart from furnishing simple
bond for the balance amount. To my mind, the learned Tribunal
has not committed any error of law in passing the impugned order
by balancing the equities. No case for interference in writ
jurisdiction is made out.
This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.BADAR
JUDGE
smp
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED
13/08/2018.
EXHIBIT P1(a) COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED
20/18/2018.
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), PALAKKAD
FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 06/12/2019.
EXHIBIT P2(a) COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), PALAKKAD
FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 06/12/2019.
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR
2015-16 DATED 04/06/2020.
EXHIBIT P3(a) COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), PALAKKAD
FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 04/06/2020.
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF COMMON ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 07/12/2020.
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.27395/2019 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 15/10/2019.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.
True copy
P.S to Judge
smp
