KIZHAKKEDATHU ENTERPRISES, vs. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND STATE TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/3193/2020HC KeralaKLHC01008826202006 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent) to consider the petitioner's delay condonation application (Ext.P5) and stay petition (Ext.P4) filed in their appeal (Ext.P3). The Tribunal is to pass orders on these applications after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment. Until orders are passed on the delay condonation and stay applications, further coercive steps for enforcing the revenue recovery notice (Ext.P6) will be kept in abeyance. The High Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the pending applications before the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kizhakkeedathu Enterprises, is challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1). They filed an appeal (Ext.P3) with a stay petition (Ext.P4) and a delay condonation petition (Ext.P5) before the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent). The petitioner's primary grievance is that despite these filings, the assessing authority initiated coercive recovery proceedings for the disputed amounts. The petitioner is represented by Sri. Bejoy Cheriyan, and the respondents are represented by Sri. Jestin Mathew. The writ petition was filed seeking intervention against these recovery actions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should consider the petitioner's delay condonation application (Ext.P5) and stay petition (Ext.P4) filed in connection with their appeal (Ext.P3) against the assessment order (Ext.P1)? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argues that coercive recovery proceedings have been initiated while their appeal and related applications for condoning delay and seeking a stay are pending before the Tribunal. They seek a direction for the Tribunal to consider these applications. Revenue's contention: The judgment records that the Government Pleader appeared for the respondents, but their specific contentions regarding the delay condonation and stay petitions are not recorded.

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 ALEXANDER THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 17TH MAGHA, 1947 WP(C).No.3193 OF 2020(Y) PETITIONER: KIZHAKKEDATHU ENTERPRISES, KIZHAKKEDATH COMPLEX, PAZHAVANGADI P.O, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN 689 673 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. JUBI PHILIP BY ADV. SRI.BEJOY CHERIYAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN 689 645 2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION COMPLEX, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN 689 645 3 THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 010 4 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN 689 645 SMT.M.M.JASMINE, GOVT.PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No.3193/2020 2 ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 3193 of 2020 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of February, 2020

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P3 appeal and Ext.P4 stay petition along with Ext.P-5 petition to condone delay. The petitioner's grievance is that during the pendency of the stay petition, coercive recovery proceedings have been initiated by the assessing authority for recovery of the disputed amounts.

Heard Sri.Bejoy Cheriyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jestin Mathew, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

After hearing both sides and after taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the 3rd respondent shall take up the matters in Ext.P-5 delay condonation application and Ext.P-4 stay application filed in Ext.P-3 appeal and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through their authorised representative/ counsel, if any, shall pass orders on those applications without much delay, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Until orders are thus passed on the abovesaid delay condonation and stay applications, further coercive steps for enforcement of the Ext.P6 revenue recovery notice will be kept in abeyance. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of. ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE. acd

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC 25(A) OF THE KVAT ACT DATED 26-03-2015 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE 1ST APPELLATE ORDER DATED 27- 06-2019 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE 2ND APPEAL DATED 30-01-2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAISNT EXT. P2 APPELLATE ORDER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 30-01-2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH EXT. P3 APPEAL EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE DELAY PETITION DATED 30-01-2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH EXT.P3 APPEAL BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 25-01-2020 ISSUED BY TO THE PETITIONER 4TH RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE RR ACT PURSUANT TO EXT.P1 ASSESSMENT ORDER.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →