BABY SCARIA vs. STATE TAX OFFICER (WORKS CONTRACT),

WP(C)/5522/2020HC KeralaKLHC01014836202026 February 2020Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, having perused the relevant documents (Exts. P1, P2, and P3), was satisfied that a case was made out for issuing necessary directions to the 2nd respondent (appellate authority). The Court found that the limited prayer and grounds presented warranted intervention. The operative directions were: (a) The appellate authority/2nd respondent shall consider and dispose of Ext.P3 application as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (b) The respondents were directed not to take coercive steps or recover the amount determined in the orders under appeal for ten weeks from the date of the judgment. The principle established is that the High Court can direct expeditious disposal of stay petitions by appellate authorities to prevent the appeal from becoming infructuous.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Baby Scaria, proprietor of M/s. Anchanickal Constructions, filed an appeal (Ext.P2) against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. Along with the appeal, the petitioner filed a stay petition (Ext.P3). The petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the appellate authority (2nd respondent) to consider and dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. The petitioner argued that the delay in deciding the stay petition could lead to recovery proceedings by the assessing officer, rendering the statutory appeal ineffective. The petitioner emphasized the legal provision for protecting appellant interests pending appeal, requiring prompt disposal of stay petitions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the appellate authority to expeditiously consider and dispose of the stay petition filed by the petitioner? (Question of procedure and administrative efficiency). Assessee's Contentions: - The mere pendency of an appeal or stay petition does not automatically grant a stay. - Delay in disposing of the stay petition by the appellate authority could result in coercive recovery steps by the assessing officer. - Such recovery actions would render the statutory appeal either academic or ineffective. - The law provides for the expeditious disposal of stay petitions to protect the interests of the appellant pending appeal. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 25(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1941 WP(C).No.5522 OF 2020(M) PETITIONER/S: BABY SCARIA, PROPRIETOR, M/S.ANCHANICKAL CONSTRUCTIONS, KANCHIYAR.P.O., IDUKKI-685511. BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.SOMAN SMT.T.RADHAMANY SHRI.PRAKASH P.B. RESPONDENT/S:

STATE TAX OFFICER (WORKS CONTRACT), STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, TAX COMPLEX, IDUKKI AT KATTAPPANA-685508.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686002.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, TAX COMPLEX, IDUKKI AT KATTAPPANA-6855508.

THE BRANCH MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LIMITED, KANCHIYAR, IDUKKI-685511.

GP DR THUSHARA JAMES., PAULOCHAN ANTONY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.5522 OF 2020 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 26th day of February 2020 The petitioner filed appeal in Ext.P2 aggrieved by the orders of assessment in Ext.P1 made under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. The petitioner has filed the appeal with Ext.P3 stay petition. The petitioner prays for appropriate direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 expeditiously. 2. The case of petitioner is that either the filing of appeal or mere pendency of appeal does not amount to granting stay by the appellate authority. The delay in considering and disposing of Ext.P3 stay petition results in the assessing officer taking steps for recovering the tax amount which is under challenge in Ext.P2. The assessing officer, if is successful in his effort the statutory appeal would become either academic or ineffective. It is further contended by the petitioner that in the manner the law provides for protecting the interest of appellant pending appeal, the orders on delay petition and stay petition are passed expeditiously. Hence the writ petition.

WP(C).No.5522 OF 2020 3 3. Perused Exts. P1, P2 and P3 . Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to 2nd respondent to dispose of the stay petition in Ext.P3. Having regard to the limited prayer and the grounds referred to above, this Court is satisfied that the writ petition can be disposed of by this judgment:- (a) The appellate authority/2nd respondent considers and disposes of Ext.P3 application as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. (b) The respondents are directed not to take coercive steps or recover the amount determined in the orders under appeal for ten weeks from today. Sd/- S.V.BHATTI JUDGE uu 27.02.2020

WP(C).No.5522 OF 2020 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32061562525/2015-16 DATED 30.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST EXHIBIT P1 ORDER DATED 23.12.2019. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 23.12.2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 15.2.2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →