Shareef M.A vs The State Tax Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 7943 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

     MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.5847 OF 2021(E)


PETITIONER:

               SHAREEF M.A.
               PROPRIETOR, M/S.H.S.TRADERS, KOTTAPPURAM,
               KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON
               SMT.MEERA V.MENON
               SMT.K.KRISHNA

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE STATE TAX OFFICER
               STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT,
               KODUNGALLUR-680664, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

      2        THE DY.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),
               SGST DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR-680 004.


OTHER PRESENT:

               SMT. THUSHARA JAMES, GOVT. PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.5847/2021                 2


                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 8th day of March 2021

The petitioner/assessee suffered assessment order, Ext.P1,

under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. He has filed an appeal

accompanied by an application for condonation of delay and also a

stay petition (Exts.P2 to P4 respectively) before the

2nd respondent. According to the learned counsel for the

petitioner, despite pendency of statutory appeal, respondents

have initiated action for recovery of the amount determined by

the assessment order at Ext.P1.

2. Learned Government Pleader, after taking notice on

behalf of respondents, opposed the writ petition by contending

that as the appeal is barred by limitation and there is no stay

operating in the matter, respondents are justified in effecting

recovery.

3. I have considered the submissions so advanced.

Undisputedly, statutory appeal along with stay petition and

application for condonation delay are pending on the file of the

2nd respondent. Hence this writ petition is disposed of with the

following directions:

The 2nd respondent is directed to decide the application for

condonation of delay and if necessary, and consequently the

application for stay, within a period of six weeks from the date of

communication of this judgment. The petitioner to co-operate the

2nd respondent in disposal of these applications. Till disposal of

the application for condonation of delay and consequently, if

occasion so arises, the application for stay, respondents should

keep all coercive action initiated for recovery of the amount under

the assessment order at Ext.P1 in abeyance. The petitioner to

communicate this judgment to the 2nd respondent for compliance.

Sd/-

A.M.BADAR

JUDGE

smp

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 29.01.2019.

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-2017 DATED 04.03.2021.

EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-2017 DATED 04.03.2021.

EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-2017 DATED 04.03.2021. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

True Copy

P.S to Judge

smp