V P KUNJUMOHAMMED vs. THE STATE TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/29293/2021HC KeralaKLHC01072865202117 December 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court acknowledged the pendency of the petitioner's second appeal and stay petition before the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal. Instead of delving into the merits of the assessment or the stay application, the Court found it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by issuing a specific direction. The Tribunal was directed to consider and pass orders on the stay petition (Ext.P4) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the High Court's judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that all coercive proceedings against the petitioner be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petition. The High Court did not decide on the substantive issues of the assessment order or the grounds for stay.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, V.P. Kunjumohammed, proprietor of M/s. Sagash Ply World, is an assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act. He is aggrieved by an assessment order dated for the assessment year 2015-2016, marked as Ext.P1. In response, he filed a second appeal before the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal (2nd respondent), as per Ext.P3, along with a petition for stay of proceedings (Ext.P4). The petitioner apprehended coercive recovery actions before his stay petition could be adjudicated. Consequently, he filed this writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking appropriate directions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when statutory remedies, including a second appeal and a stay petition, are available and pending before the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that he filed a second appeal and a stay petition before the Tribunal and apprehended coercive recovery proceedings before the stay petition was considered. This imminent threat of coercive action necessitated the intervention of the High Court through a writ petition. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondents (State Tax Officer and Assistant Commissioner of State Tax).

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 PETITIONER: V P KUNJUMOHAMMED, PROPRIETOR, AGED 53 YEARS M/S.SAGAS PLY WORLD, KADUVEETTIYIL BUILDING, VENGOOR-PANAMKUZHY ROAD, VENGOOR, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADVS. P.S.SOMAN T.RADHAMONY RESPONDENTS:

THE STATE TAX OFFICER SPECIAL TEAM, 1ST CIRCLE, STATE GOODS & SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, AT MINI CIVIL STATION, PERUMBAVOOR – 683 542.

THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, TAX COMPLEX, PERUMANOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM – 682 015.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, STATE GOODS & SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, AT MINI CIVIL STATION, MUVATTUPUZHA – 686 669. SMT.THUSHARA JAMES, SR.GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J ======================= W.P.(C) No. 29293 of 2021 ------------------------------- Dated this the 17 th day of December, 2021 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order, relating to assessment year 2015- 2016, petitioner has preferred a second appeal before the 2nd respondent, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P3. A petition for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment order has also been filed as Ext.P4. Petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings to be effected even before the petition for stay is considered. Hence, this writ petition. 2. Having considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, I am of the opinion that this writ petition itself can be disposed of with a direction.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2 nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 stay petition, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. Till such a decision is taken, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE AMV/17/12/2021 APPENDIX

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1 COPY OF THE CST ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2015-2016 DATED 15.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P2 COPY OF TEH 1ST APPELLATE ORDER NO.KVATA 2111/2019 DATED 17.06.2021. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT.P1 ORDER DATED 07.12.2021. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY OF COLLECTION OF DISPUTED AMOUNT IN EXT.P1 ORDER DATED 07.12.2021. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-2016 DATED 28.09.2019. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL TRUE COPY

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →