Kerala High Court
Vizag Exports vs The Deputy Commissioner ... on 17 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 26TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 9390 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
M/S.VIZAG EXPORTS,
MANGAD, KOLLAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
ABHAYA MOHANAN.
BY ADVS.
SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON
SMT.MEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT)
STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT,
SPECIAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM-691 001.
2 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)
STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT,
KOLLAM-691 001.
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS LAW SECRETARY,
LAW (G) DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001
SRI.JOSEPH JOSEPH, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 9390 OF 2021
2
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
===========================
W.P.(C) No.9390 of 2021
---------------------------------
Dated this the 17 th day of September, 2021
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is an assesseee under the Kerala Value Added
Tax Act, 2003. Faced with Ext.P1 assessment order for
the assessment year 2014-2015, petitioner has filed
Ext.P2 appeal before theh 2 nd respondent.
2. Now the petitioner complains that the appellate
authority, instead of numbering the appeal, has kept the
appeal aside as defective and issued Ext.P3 notice
alleging that the petitioner has not deposited 1% of the
disputed tax as court fee due to the Kerala Legal Benefit
Fund and also cautioned that the appeal will be rejected
for default, if the said amount is not deposited.
3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the
petitioner needs to pay only 0.5% of the disputed amount
WP(C) NO. 9390 OF 2021
because of the relevant notification and the judgment of
this Court in O.P.(Tax) No.2/2017.
4. I have heard Adv.Harisankar V.Menon, the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel,
and have also perused the records.
5. It is true that the statute now mandates the amount to
be paid to the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund as 1% of the
disputed tax amount, by virtue of the amendment dated
07.04.2016. This Court has held, through series of
judgments, that the amendment is prospective.
6. In view of the judgment in O.P.(Tax) No.2/2017, it
will suffice if the petitioner remits 0.5% of the disputed
tax to the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund and also furnishes a
personal bond without sureties before the Assessing
Authority undertaking to pay the balance amount due
under the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund, if the issue is
ultimately found against the petitioner. On furnishing
the bond as directed above and on payment of 0.5% of
WP(C) NO. 9390 OF 2021
the disputed tax to the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund (if not
already paid) within four weeks from today, the appellate
authority shall number the appeal and consider the same
on merits, in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS,
JUDGE
AMV/20/09//2021
WP(C) NO. 9390 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9390/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 14.8.2020.
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR
2014-15 DATED 17.2.2021.
EXHIBIT P3 DEFECT NOTICE IS ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 22.2.2021.
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF NOTIFICATION IS ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 7.4.2016.
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
WP(C) NO.27245/19 DATED 15.10.2019.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL
//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE
