M/S NILA METALS (P) LTD. vs. STATE TAX OFFICER-I

WP(C)/6474/2021HC KeralaKLHC01017225202112 March 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. It acknowledged that the statutory appeal challenging the assessment order was pending before the 2nd respondent. The Court directed the 2nd respondent (Joint Commissioner (Appeals)) to decide the pending stay petition (Ext.P3) within six weeks from the date of communication of the judgment. The petitioner was directed to cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the stay petition. Crucially, the Court ordered that until the disposal of the stay petition, the coercive action initiated by the revenue, including the revenue recovery notice (Ext.P4), shall be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order itself, focusing on the procedural aspect of recovery pending appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Nila Metals (P) Ltd., a registered dealer, is challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Assessing Officer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The petitioner filed a statutory appeal (Ext.P2) along with a stay petition (Ext.P3) before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), the 2nd respondent. The petitioner's grievance is that despite the pendency of the appeal and stay petition, the respondents are proceeding with the recovery of the amount demanded in the assessment order. The revenue, represented by the Government Pleader, contended that the petitioner is liable to pay the assessed amount.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the recovery proceedings initiated by the revenue should be kept in abeyance pending the disposal of the statutory appeal and stay petition filed by the assessee? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and statutory appeal provisions). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that recovery action is being pursued despite the pendency of their statutory appeal and stay petition, causing prejudice. They sought a stay on recovery proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the petitioner is liable to pay the amount as assessed by the assessment order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1942 WP(C).No.6474 OF 2021 PETITIONER/S: M/S NILA METALS (P) LTD.,VELLAPPARA, PAZHAYANNUR P.O, THRISSUR-680587, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR A.G.MADHAVAN. BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.SOMAN SMT.T.RADHAMONY SHRI.PRAKASH P.B. RESPONDENT/S:

STATE TAX OFFICER-I STATE GOOD AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, VADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR-680582.

JOINT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, TAX COMPLEX, POOTHOLE P.O, THRISSUR-680004.

DEPUTY COMMISSI&AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, TAX COMPLEX, POOTHOLE P.O, THRISSUR-680004. SMT. JASMINE.M.M – GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.6474 OF 2021 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 12th day of March 2021

Heard both sides.

Petitioner, a registered dealer has challenged the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 before the 2nd respondent by filing statutory appeal at Ext.P2 along with stay petition at Ext.P3. Grievance of the petitioner is to the effect that despite pendency of the statutory appeal as well as the stay petition, the respondents are resorting to recovery of the amount determined by the assessment order at Ext.P1.

Learned Government Pleader opposed the petition by contending that the petitioner is liable to pay the amount as assessed by the assessment order at Ext.P1.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the instant case and as the statutory appeal challenging the assessment order is reportedly pending before the 2nd respondent, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

The 2nd respondent is directed to decide the pending stay petition at Ext.P3, within a period of six weeks from the date of

WP(C).No.6474 OF 2021 3 communication of this judgment. Petitioner to cooperate with the 2nd respondent in expeditious disposal of the stay petition at Ext.P3. Till disposal of the stay petition at Ext.P3, respondents are directed to keep the coercive action initiated by the revenue recovery notice at Ext.P4 in abeyance. Sd/- A.M.BADAR ajt JUDGE

WP(C).No.6474 OF 2021 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 11.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST EXHIBIT- P1 ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 01.02.2021. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY OF COLLECTION OF DISPUTED TAX IN EXBIBIT-P1 ORDER DATED 01.02.2021. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE NO.R.R 76/2020-21 DATED 05.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DEMANDING THE AMOUNT COVERED IN EXHIBIT-P1 ORDER.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →