JUBY PHILIP vs. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND STATE TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/34134/2019HC KeralaKLHC01089034201913 December 2019Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, acknowledging the delay of 39 days in filing the appeal, deemed it appropriate to condone the delay. The Court directed the second respondent (Assistant Commissioner (Appeals)) to consider and pass a reasoned order on the stay petition within one month of receiving a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court ordered that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the modified assessment order be kept in abeyance until the second respondent passed orders on the stay petition and communicated them to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish copies of the writ petition and the judgment to the second respondent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Juby Philip, proprietor of M/s. Kizhakkedathu Agencies, challenged a modified assessment order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals), the second respondent, along with an application for condonation of delay and a stay petition. Despite the pending stay petition, the respondents initiated recovery steps for the amounts confirmed in the modified assessment order. The petitioner sought intervention from the High Court of Kerala to prevent recovery actions until the appeal and stay petition were decided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 39 days in filing the appeal before the second respondent should be condoned, considering the Kerala Value Added Tax Act and relevant procedural rules. 2. Whether recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the modified assessment order should be stayed pending the disposal of the appeal and stay petition by the second respondent. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that recovery steps were being taken prematurely, even before the stay petition was considered by the appellate authority. The petitioner sought a direction to stay recovery proceedings until a decision was rendered on the appeal and stay petition. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Kerala Value Added Tax Act

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1941 WP(C).No.34134 OF 2019(N) PETITIONER/S: JUBY PHILIP PROPRIETOR, M/S. KIZHAKKEDATHU AGENCIES, PAZHAVANGADI P.O., RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 673. BY ADV. SRI.BEJOY CHERIYAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 645. 2 THE ASSISANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION COMPLEX, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 645. GOVERNMENT PLEADER DR.THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.34134 OF 2019(N) 2

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P3 modified assessment order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 appeal together with Ext.P6 delay condonation application and Ext.P5 stay petition before the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that even prior to considering the stay petition, recovery steps are taken by the respondents against the petitioner for recovery of the amounts confirmed by Ext.P3 modified assessment order.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:

Taking note of the fact that the delay in approaching the 2nd respondent is only 39 days, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay and direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass reasoned orders on Ext.P5 stay petition within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner.

Recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P3 modified assessment order shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner.

WP(C).No.34134 OF 2019(N) 3

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 2nd respondent, for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

WP(C).No.34134 OF 2019(N) 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30- 11-2017 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY 1ST RESPONDENT, U/S 25(1) OF THE KVAT ACT FOR 2014-15. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 28- 04-2018 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT FOR 2014-15. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MODIFIED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27-08-2019 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY 1ST RESPONDENT, U/S 25(1) OF THE KVAT ACT FOR 2014-15. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 05-12-2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST EXT. P3 MODIFIED ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 05-12-2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH EXT. P4 APPEAL BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF DELAY PETITION DATED 05-12- 2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH EXT. P4 APPEAL BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →