M/S. EDASSERY RESORT vs. STATE TAX OFFICER (INTELLIGENCE)
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in a writ petition and that the appellant's remedy lies in filing an appeal. The Court granted the appellant ten days to file the appeal and directed the appellate authority to dispose of it within two months without considering the limitation period.
What were the facts?
The appellant, a registered dealer under the KGST Act, was imposed a penalty by the State Tax Officer. The appellant challenged this order through a writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, who directed the appellant to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.
What were the issues?
Whether a writ petition is the appropriate forum to decide disputed questions of fact related to a penalty order, or if the statutory appellate remedy should be pursued.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 45A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T 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.
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.
We have heard Sri.Tomson T.Emmanuel, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.V.K.Shamsudheen, the learned Senior Government Pleader.
The appellant challenged Ext.P4 on various factual grounds. The appellant does not have a case that the 1st
WA No.136/2024 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. DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE Rp
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
