M/S. Edassery Resort vs State Tax Officer (Intelligence)
2024 Latest Caselaw 4266 Ker

Kerala High Court

M/S. Edassery Resort vs State Tax Officer (Intelligence) on 1 February, 2024

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, Kauser Edappagath

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
    THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
                               &
        THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
  THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 12TH MAGHA, 1945
                      WA NO. 136 OF 2024
  AGAINST THE    JUDGMENT WP(C) 25665/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF
                            KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WP(C):

         M/S. EDASSERY RESORT
         KUMALY ROAD, KATTAPANA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
         MANAGING PARTNER, SRI. E J DAVIS, AGED 69.,
         PIN - 685508
         BY ADV TOMSON T.EMMANUEL


RESPONDENTS/rESPONDENT IN WP(C):

    1    STATE TAX OFFICER (INTELLIGENCE)
         SQUAD NO.I, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
         DEPARTMENT, IDUKKI AT KATTAPANA., PIN - 685508
    2    INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT)
         STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT,
         KATTAPANA., PIN - 685508
OTHER PRESENT:

         SR.GP-V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN

     THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WA No.136/2024

                              -:2:-



                         JUDGMENT

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J.

The appellant, a partnership firm, is a registered dealer

under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred

to as the KGST Act) conducting a bar-attached hotel under the

name and style Edassery Resorts at Kattapana.

2. The 1st respondent passed Ext.P4 order against the

appellant, imposing penalty under Section 45A of the KGST Act.

The appellant challenged Ext.P4 before the learned Single Judge.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, relegating

the appellant to the statutory appellate remedy before the

appellate authority. It is challenging the said judgment of the

learned Single Judge; the appellant is before us.

3. We have heard Sri.Tomson T.Emmanuel, the learned

counsel for the appellant and Sri.V.K.Shamsudheen, the learned

Senior Government Pleader.

4. The appellant challenged Ext.P4 on various factual

grounds. The appellant does not have a case that the 1 st

respondent passed Ext.P4 order without jurisdiction or it was not

heard before passing the order. The disputed question of law

cannot be decided in the writ petition. As rightly held by the

learned Single Judge, the remedy open to the appellant is to

challenge Ext.P4 in appeal before the appellate authority. The

time the learned Single Judge granted in the impugned judgment

to prefer appeal has expired. Hence, we grant ten more days'

time to the appellant to prefer the appeal. If the appeal is

instituted within the said period, the appellate authority shall

hear and dispose of the same in accordance with law within two

months thereafter without going into the question of limitation.

The realisation of the penalty shall stand stayed until the disposal

of the appeal.

The writ appeal is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

Rp