MANALTHEERAM AYURVEDA HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD. vs. STATE TAX OFFICER (LUXURY TAX)

WP(C)/24161/2019HC KeralaKLHC01062414201904 September 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, after perusing the relevant documents (Exts. P1, P1(a), P2, and P3), was satisfied that a case was made out for issuing necessary directions to the second respondent (appellate authority). The Court directed the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the stay application (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 order under appeal for ten weeks from the date of the judgment. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of expeditious disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manaltheeram Ayurveda Hospital and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal (Ext.P2) against a modified order of assessment (Ext.P1(a)) under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976. The petitioner also filed a stay petition (Ext.P3) along with the appeal. 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 by the appellate authority could lead to recovery actions by the assessing officer, rendering the statutory appeal ineffective. The petitioner sought a direction for the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the stay petition expeditiously.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should issue a direction to the appellate authority to expeditiously consider and dispose of the stay petition filed by the assessee pending appeal? (Question of procedure and administrative efficiency). Assessee's Contentions: - The mere filing or pendency of an appeal does not amount to a stay being granted by the appellate authority. - Delay in disposing of the stay petition could result in coercive recovery steps by the assessing officer, making the statutory appeal academic or ineffective. - The law provides for expeditious disposal of stay petitions to protect the interest of the appellant. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the issues raised by the petitioner.

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 04TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 13TH BHADRA, 1941 WP(C).No.24161 OF 2019(U) PETITIONER/S: MANALTHEERAM AYURVEDA HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD. KOTTUKAL, CHOWARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY BABY MATHEW, MG. DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.SOMAN SMT.T.RADHAMANY SRI.B.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT/S:

STATE TAX OFFICER (LUXURY TAX) STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, TAX TOWER, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, TAX TOWER, KARAMANA P.O. , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695121. OTHER PRESENT: GP. DR. THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T Dated this the 4th day of September 2019 The petitioner filed appeal in Ext.P2 aggrieved by the modified order of assessment in Ext.P1(a) made under Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act, 1976. 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 Exts.P3 and P3A 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. Hence

the writ petition. 3. Perused Exts. P1, P1(a), P2 and P3. Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to second 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/second respondent considers and disposes of Ext.P3 stay 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 order under appeal for ten weeks from today. Sd/- S.V.BHATTI JUDGE jjj

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32015205134/2016-17 DATED 28.02.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2016-17. EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MODIFIED ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32015205134/2016-17 DATED 25.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2016-17. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST EXHIBIT P1 ASSESSMENT ORDER AS MODIFIED BY EXHIBIT P1(A) DATED 25.04.2019. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY OF COLLECTION OF DISPUTED TAX FILED AGAINST EXHIBIT P1 ASSESSMENT ORDER AS MODIFIED BY EXHIBIT P1(A) DATED 25.04.2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DEMANDING THE ASSESSED TAX IN EXHIBIT P1 ASSESSMENT ORDER AS MODIFIED BY EXHIBIT P1(A) FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 26.07.2019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →