GDS PERFUMERY PRIVATE LTD., vs. THE STATE TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/28013/2020HC KeralaKLHC01069926202015 December 2020Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. The 3rd respondent (Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)) was directed to consider and pass reasoned orders on the petitioner's stay petition (Ext.P3) within four months from the date of receipt of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Furthermore, recovery steps pursuant to the demand notice (Ext.P4) for amounts confirmed by the assessment order (Ext.P1) were ordered to be kept in abeyance until the 3rd respondent passes orders on the stay petition and communicates them to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish copies of the writ petition and the judgment to the 3rd respondent for further action. The court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of recovery pending appeal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, GDS Perfumery Private Ltd., is challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1) under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The petitioner has filed an appeal (Ext.P2) and a stay petition (Ext.P3) before the 3rd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). A demand notice (Ext.P4) has also been issued. The petitioner contends that recovery steps are being taken against them even before their stay petition is considered. The writ petition was filed seeking directions from the High Court regarding this situation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the recovery steps initiated by the respondents are premature, given that the stay petition filed by the petitioner is pending consideration before the appellate authority? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that recovery actions are being pursued despite the pendency of their appeal and stay petition, which is contrary to the expected procedure. They rely on the principle that recovery should ordinarily be deferred until the appellate remedies are exhausted or at least until a decision on interim relief is made. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue regarding the prematurity of recovery steps. The learned Government Pleader appeared for the respondents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Kerala Value Added Tax Act

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

WP(C).No.28013 OF 2020

TC 4/2085

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942 PETITIONER: GDS PERFUMERY PRIVATE LTD., TC 4/2085, KURAVANKONAM, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695543, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR PREMANAND G. SHENOY. BY ADV. SMT.M.A.JINSA MOL RESPONDENTS:

THE STATE TAX OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, 1ST CIRCLE, TAX TOWERS, KILLIPPALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695002.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, (AUTHORISED OFFICER UNDER RR ACT), DEPARTMENT OF STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695121.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695002.

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. GP DR.THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal together with Ext.P3 stay petition before the 3rd respondent. Ext.P4 is the demand notice. It is the case of the petitioner that even prior to considering the stay petition, recovery steps are taken by the respondents against the petitioner for recovery of the amounts confirmed by Ext.P1 assessment order. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions: 1. The 3rd respondent shall consider and pass reasoned orders on Ext.P3 stay petition within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. 2. Recovery steps pursuant to Ext.P4 demand notice for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 3rd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner. 3. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 3rd

respondent, for further action. Sd/-

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE hmh

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE UNDER FORM NO.12 DATED 23.3.2020 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 DATED 4.7.2020 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 25.11.2020 FILED ALONG WITH THE P2 APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 OF REVENUE RECOVERY ACT DATED 23.11.2020 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →