ANILA SALGUNAN, vs. THE STATE TAX OFFICER,

WP(C)/32537/2019HC KeralaKLHC01085002201929 November 2019Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, taking note of the 90-day delay in approaching the Tribunal, deemed it appropriate to condone the delay. The Tribunal was directed to consider and pass reasoned orders on the petitioner's stay petition within two months of receiving a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Furthermore, recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment order were ordered to be kept in abeyance until the Tribunal passed its orders on the stay petition and communicated them to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish copies of the writ petition and the judgment to the Tribunal for further action. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself, but rather on the procedural aspects of the pending proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anila Salgunan, proprietress of M/s Sree Parvathy Hardwares, is challenging an assessment order for the assessment year 2014-15 under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The petitioner's first appeal before the First Appellate Authority was dismissed. Subsequently, an appeal was filed before the VAT Appellate Tribunal along with a delay condonation application and a stay petition. The petitioner contends that recovery steps were initiated by the respondents even before the stay petition was considered. The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Kerala seeking directions regarding the pending appeal and stay petition before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 90 days in filing the appeal before the VAT Appellate Tribunal should be condoned, and if so, what directions should be issued to the Tribunal regarding the consideration of the stay petition and the recovery proceedings. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was only 90 days and that recovery steps were being taken prematurely. The petitioner sought directions for the Tribunal to consider the stay petition and to keep recovery proceedings in abeyance. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific contentions from the revenue. The Government Pleader appeared for the respondents.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941 PETITIONER: ANILA SALGUNAN, AGED 39 YEARS PROPRIETRESS, M/S SREE PARVATHY HARDWARES, KODAKARA, THRISSUR-680 684. BY ADVS. SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI SRI.P.UNNIKRISHNAN (THRISSUR) SHRI. HRITHWIK D. NAMBOOTHIRI RESPONDENTS:

THE STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, CHALAKKUDY- 680 307.

THE ASST.COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 004.

THE VAT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DEPT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SALE TAX COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM-682 011.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, MINI CIVIL STATION, IRINJALAKUDA-680 125. OTHER PRESENT: GP M M JASMINE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order for the assessment year 2014-15 under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, the same came to be dismissed by Ext.P2 order. The petitioner therefore, preferred Ext.P3 appeal together with Ext.P4 delay condonation application and Ext.P5 stay petition before the 3rd respondent Tribunal. 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. Taking note of the fact that the delay in approaching the 3rd respondent is only 90 days, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay and direct the 3rd respondent Tribunal to consider and pass reasoned orders on Ext.P5 stay petition within a period of two month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. 2. Recovery steps 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 Tribunal 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 Tribunal, for further action. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE SJ

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO 32080877008/2014-15 DATED 28.9.2016 FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER NO KVATA 826/16 DATED 28.11.2018 FOR THE YEAR 2014- 15 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND APPEAL DATED 4.11.2019 FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY CON DONATION PETITION 4.11.2019 FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 4.11.2019 FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →