Pookodan Towers vs Assistant Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 596 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
                              &
          THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
 FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 24TH POUSHA, 1943
                   OP (TAX) NO. 7 OF 2022
         AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN TA 6/2021 OF
             AGRL.I.T.ADDITIONAL BENCH,KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/S:

          M/S.POOKODAN TOWERS,
          (CHERAKULAM TOWERS & HIGHWAY RESORT),
          ALAGAPPANAGAR P.O., AMBALLUR, THRISSUR-680302,
          REPRESENTED BY M.J.JOSEPH, MG. PARTNER.
          BY ADVS.
          P.S.SOMAN
          T.RADHAMONY


RESPONDENT/S:

    1     ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
          SPECIAL CIRCLE, STATE GOODS & SERVICE TAX
          DEPARTMENT, TAX COMPLEX, THRISSUR-680004.
    2     THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX/AGRICULTURAL INCOME
          TAX AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
          ADDITIONAL BENCH, CHEROOTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE-
          673032.
    3     THE STATE OF KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
          TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
          BY SRI.SHAMSUDEEN V.K. GOVERNMENT PLEADER


THIS OP TAX HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.01.2022, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 O.P.(TAX) No.7/2022             2




                           JUDGMENT

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

This original petition is filed challenging an order of the

Appellate Tribunal, Kozhikode, in an application for stay. The

petitioner has been directed to deposit 30% of the disputed

demand and also to furnish a security bond within one month

from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The date of the

order was on 29.11.2021.

2. According to the petitioner, the order is not a reasoned

order as held by this Court in Archana Agencies v. Commercial

Tax Officer [2014 (2) KLT 715]. It is submitted that the

petitioner's case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court

in Kairali Jewellery v. Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle,

Thiruvananthapuram [(2020) 74 GSTR 348 (ker.)]. The Tribunal

is satisfied with the prima facie arguments and granted a stay.

We are of the view that the Tribunal had not committed any

jurisdictional error in granting conditional stay as above,

However, taking note of the fervent plea made before us by the

learned counsel for the petitioner, we grant time upto 28.2.2022.

The petitioner can comply with the conditions either in

instalment or lump sum on or before 28.02.2022.

The original petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

Sd/-

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE ln

APPENDIX OF OP (TAX) 7/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY EXCISE COMMISSIONER, THRISSUR DATED 25.8.2021.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 19.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER NO.275/19 DATED 23.4.2020 ISSUED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), STATE GST DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR FOR THE YEAR 2011-

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.8.2021.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY OF COLLECTION OF DISPUTED TAX FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.8.2021.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE HEARING OF THE STAY PETITION.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER NO.INTP.6/2021 IN TA-6/21 DATED 29.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2011-12.