PHOTO PERFECT DIGITAL OFFSET PRESS vs. STATE TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/24447/2019HC KeralaKLHC01063103201905 September 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court was satisfied that a case was made out for issuing necessary directions to the 2nd respondent (The Assistant Commissioner (Appeals)) to dispose of the stay petition (Ext.P3). The Court directed the appellate authority to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Additionally, the respondents were directed not to take coercive steps or recover the amounts determined in the orders under appeal for ten weeks from the date of the judgment. The Court found that the limited prayer and grounds presented warranted the issuance of these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Photo Perfect Digital Offset Press, filed an appeal (Ext.P2) against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. Along with the appeal, they filed a stay petition (Ext.P3). The petitioner contended that the mere filing or pendency of an appeal does not automatically grant a stay. They argued that delays in disposing of the stay petition would allow the assessing officer to initiate recovery proceedings, rendering the statutory appeal either academic or ineffective. The petitioner sought a direction for the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the stay petition expeditiously, as provided by law to protect the appellant's interest pending appeal. The writ petition was filed seeking such a direction.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appellate authority should be directed to consider and dispose of the stay petition (Ext.P3) expeditiously? (Question of procedure/mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: - The mere filing or pendency of an appeal does not amount to a stay granted by the appellate authority. - Delay in disposing of the stay petition allows the assessing officer to take recovery steps, potentially making the appeal ineffective. - The law provides for expeditious disposal of stay petitions to protect the appellant's interest pending appeal. Revenue's Contentions: - No specific contentions from the revenue are recorded in the judgment.

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 THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 14TH BHADRA, 1941 WP(C).No.24447 OF 2019 PETITIONER/S: M/S. PHOTO PERFECT DIGITAL OFFSET PRESS 33/1750, A3, POTTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANIYAPILLY ROAD, VENNALA P. O., KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY RAJESH PADMANABHAN, PARTNER. BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.SOMAN SMT.T.RADHAMANY RESPONDENT/S:

STATE TAX OFFICER 2ND CIRCLE, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, KALAMASSERY, AT CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD - 682030

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, TAX COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM - 682015.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682030 OTHER PRESENT: GP. DR. THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.24447 OF 2019 -2- JUDGMENT The petitioner filed appeal in Ext.P2 aggrieved by the order 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 mere 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 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 order on stay petition is passed expeditiously.

WP(C).No.24447 OF 2019 -3- Hence the writ petition. 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 order: (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 amounts determined in the orders under appeal for ten weeks from today. Sd/- S.V.BHATTI JUDGE JS

WP(C).No.24447 OF 2019 -4- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32071376722/2012-13 DATED 26.04.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST EXHIBIT - P1 ORDER DATED 05.04.2019. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05.04.2019 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE NO.A5-2664/19 RRC NO.78/2019 DATED 16.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →