K.O.ITTOOP vs. THE STATE TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/21097/2021HC KeralaKLHC01054544202105 October 2021Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it would be an injustice to proceed with revenue recovery proceedings until an order is passed in the pending appeal, especially since the petitioner has already been heard. The Court directed that all further proceedings pursuant to the demand notice (Ext.P5) should be deferred until the second respondent passes an order on the appeal (Ext.P2). The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment or the appeal itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of allowing the appeal process to conclude before enforcing recovery. The ratio is that revenue recovery should be stayed pending a decision on a heard appeal to prevent prejudice to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, K.O. Ittoop, proprietor of M/s. Konuparamban Traders, filed an appeal (Ext.P2) before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) (second respondent) for the assessment year 2015-2016, challenging an assessment order dated 30.03.2021. The appeal was heard on 14.07.2021, but no order has been passed by the appellate authority to date. The petitioner apprehends revenue recovery proceedings and notes that such proceedings have already been initiated, as evidenced by Ext.P5. The writ petition was filed seeking intervention due to the delay in the appellate order and the initiation of recovery actions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether it is just and equitable to proceed with revenue recovery proceedings when an appeal against the assessment order has been heard but no decision has been rendered by the appellate authority? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and statutory appeal procedures). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that it would be unjust to proceed with recovery proceedings while the appeal is pending and has been heard, especially given the delay in the appellate authority's decision. They pointed to the initiation of recovery proceedings as evidence of this apprehension. Revenue's Contention: The revenue was represented by the learned Government Pleader, Dr. Thushara James. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue, other than their representation.

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 TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 13TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 21097 OF 2021 PETITIONER: K.O.ITTOOP AGED 63 YEARS PROPRIETOR, M/S.KONUPARAMBAN TRADERS, ALOOR, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 683. BY ADVS. S.K.DEVI SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS:

THE STATE TAX OFFICER KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, IVTH CIRCLE, STATE TAX COMPLEX, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 003.

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, STATE TAX COMPLEX, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR - 680 003.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 125. DR. THUSHARA JAMES -SR GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J ------------------------------- -------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of October, 2021 JUDGMENT For the assessment year 2015-2016, petitioner had preferred Ext.P2 appeal challenging order of assessment dated 30.03.2021. It is submitted by the petitioner that though the appeal was heard by the second respondent on 14.07.2021, no orders have been passed till date. It is also pointed out that in the meantime, the petitioner is apprehending revenue recovery proceedings. In fact, according to the petitioner, respondents have already initiated recovery proceedings which is evident from Ext.P5. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions of Adv.Santhosh P. Abraham, as well as after hearing Dr.Thushara James, the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that since petitioner has already been heard in the pending appeal, it will be an injustice to proceed with the recovery proceedings, until orders are passed in the

appeal. Accordingly, there will be a direction to defer all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 demand notice till orders on Ext.P2 appeal has been passed by the second respondent. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJ/05.10.2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21097/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32080811444/2015-16 DATED 30/3/2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 27/4/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 27/4/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH APPEAL. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.KVAT-207/21 DATED 28/06/2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.A2- 1318/2021 DATED 23/9/2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →