Hotel Surya vs Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax
2022 Latest Caselaw 7204 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
        THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1944
                        WP(C) NO. 20429 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

            HOTEL SURYA
            IRRITY, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
            K.T. MATHEW.

            BY ADVS.
            RAJESH NAMBIAR
            N.R.SAJ



RESPONDENTS:

    1       DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX
            STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, SPECIAL CIRCLE,
            ADDITIONAL CIVIL STATION, KANNUR - 670001.

    2       JOINT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) -I,
            ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF JOINT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)-II,
            STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE -
            675006.

    3       THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX/AGRI INCOME TAX/SALES TAX,
            APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOZHIKODE -
            673032, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.


OTHER PRESENT:

            ADV. DR. THUSHARA JAMES (SR GP)




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P (C) No.20429/2022                       -2-

                                    JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this court being aggrieved by Ext.P5 interim

order which requires the petitioner to deposit 20% of the total demand as a

condition for stay. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out the extreme

financial difficulties through which the petitioner is passing and states that the

condition is too cumbersome and cannot be complied with.

2. The learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondent

would point out that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal has

passed a very reasonable order requiring the deposit of 20% of the total demand as

a condition for stay. It is submitted that the petitioner is running a bar hotel and is

very much in a position to comply with the condition imposed in Ext.P5. .

3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having

heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government

Pleader, I am of the view that no interference is called for with Ext.P5 order.

However, as a matter of indulgence and taking into account the submission of the

learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to pay the amount

directed to be paid by the Tribunal in 5 equal monthly installments commencing

from 05-07-2022. The payment as above will be treated as full compliance of Ext.P5

order.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE AMG

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20429/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER THE KGST ACT FOR THE YEAR 2019-20 DATED 16.09.2021.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 6.12.2021 DISMISSING THE APPEAL.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT P2 APPELLATE ORDER.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED ALONG WITH EXT P3 APPEAL.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 5.05.2021 IN EXT P4 STAY PETITION.