K. M. TRADERS (OOVATTIL TRADERS), vs. STATE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the pre-assessment notices. The Court held that at the stage of pre-assessment notices, which had not yet culminated in final orders, there was no justification for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court noted that the fact of the penalty orders being under appeal with a stay of recovery could be brought to the notice of the assessing authority during the completion of the assessment pursuant to the impugned notices. The Court explicitly stated that its dismissal was without prejudice to the petitioner's right to challenge any final orders passed by the assessing authority if they were vitiated by jurisdictional errors.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, K.M. Traders, filed multiple writ petitions challenging pre-assessment notices issued under the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act for various assessment years. The petitioner's primary contention was that these pre-assessment notices were based on penalty orders previously passed against them. The petitioner had appealed these penalty orders and obtained a stay of recovery pending the disposal of their appeals by the first appellate authority. The writ petitions sought to impugn the pre-assessment notices on the grounds that they were predicated on these stayed penalty orders.
What were the issues?
1. Whether pre-assessment notices issued under the KVAT Act, which are alleged to be based on penalty orders that are under appeal and have a stay of recovery, are liable to be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the pre-assessment notices were invalid because they were based on penalty orders that were subject to appeal and had a stay of recovery. Therefore, the assessment proceedings initiated by these notices were fundamentally flawed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Government Pleader appeared for the respondents. No specific arguments for the revenue are detailed in the judgment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Article 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (4 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
WP(C).No.22392 OF 2019(Y) K.M.TRADERS (OOVATTIL TRADERS) DOOR NO.XX/273, OSA BUILDING, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA-683108, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, K.M.BASHEER, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMAD, KARUKAPPADATHU (H), ELOOR KARA, MUPPATHADAM.P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683110.
TAX DEPARTMENT, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683101.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, THEVARA JUNCTION, THEVARA, PERUMANOOR, KOCHI, KERALA-682015. OTHER PRESENT: GP THUSHARA JAMES 04.11.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).22394/2019(Y), WP(C).22411/2019(B),
:2: WP(C).No.22394 OF 2019(Y) PETITIONERS: K.M.TRADERS (OOVATTIL TRADERS) DOOR NO. XX/273, OSA BUILDING, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA 683 108, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER K.M. BASHEER, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM 683 110.
STATE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER TAX DEPARTMENT, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 101.
PERUMANOOR KOCHI, KERALA 682 015. 04.11.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).22392/2019(Y), WP(C).22411/2019(B),
:3: WP(C).No.22411 OF 2019(B) K M TRADERS (OOVATTIL TRADERS), DOOR NO.XX/273, OSA BUILDING, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA-683108, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, K.M.BASHEER, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMAD, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683110. SRI.T.S.SARATH SRI.T.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ SHRI.AJAY JAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENT/S:
TAX DEPARTMENT, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683101.
PERUMANOOR, KOCHI, KERALA-682015. 04.11.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).22392/2019(Y), WP(C).22394/2019(Y),
:4: WP(C).No.22420 OF 2019(B) K. M. TRADERS (OOVATTIL TRADERS), XX/273, OSA BUILDING, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA- 683108, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, K.M. BASHEER, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-673110. SRI.T.S.SARATH SRI.T.M.MUHAMMED MUSTHAQ SHRI.AJAY JAYACHANDRAN
GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683101.
PERUMANOOR, KOCHI, KERALA-682015. 04.11.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).22392/2019(Y), WP(C).22394/2019(Y), WP(C).22411/2019(B), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
:5: JUDGMENT In all these writ petitions, the challenge is to pre-assesment notices that have been issued to the petitioner, proposing assessment for various assessment years under the KVAT Act. In the writ petitions, the sole contention of the petitioner is that penalty proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for the said assessment years and against the orders of penalty ultimately passed against him, he had preferred appeals before the Appellate Authority and obtained a stay of recovery, pending disposal of the appeals by the first appellate authority. The proposals for assessment are impugned mainly on the ground that the said proposals are based on the penalty orders already passed against the petitioner for the assessment years in question.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I find that the challenge in the writ petitions is only to pre-assessment notices which have not culminated in any orders passed against the petitioner. Although it is the case of the petitioner that pre-assessment notices are based on the penalty orders, the fact of the penalty orders being subjected to appeal before the first appellate authority can be brought to the notice of the respondent assessing authority at the time of completion of assessment pursuant to the notices impugned in
:6: these writ petitions. At this stage of the proceedings, I do not see any justification for interfering with the notices impugned in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to impugn any orders passed by the assessing authority, if vitiated by jurisdictional errors, before this court, I dismiss the writ petitions in its challenge against the pre-assessment notices. The writ petitions are ordered as above. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
okb //True copy// P.S. to Judge
:7: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22392/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 ISSUED BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1 21.4.2018. BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.7.2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-2018. THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 6.8.2018 ON 18.6.2019 AGAINST EXT.P1 ORDER PENDING HEARIANG IN EXT.P4 APPEAL PENDING BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ON 10.6.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT YEAR 2017-2018. 7.8.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 14.8.2019 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO EXT.P5.
:8: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22394/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 ISSUED BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO. 1 21.4.2018. THE TRUE COPY OF THE S. 25 (1) NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.7.2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013- 2014. THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 6.8.2018 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT. P2 NOTICE. ON 18.6.2019 AGAINST EXT. P1 ORDER PENDING THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CON DONATION DELAY IN EXT. P4 APPEAL PENDING IN EXT. P4 APPEAL PENDING BEFORE THE 2ND HEARING IN EXT. P4 APPEAL PENDING BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ON 10.6.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT YEAR 2013-2014. 7.8.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 14.8.2019 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO EXT. P5
:9: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22411/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-2017 ISSUED BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, 21/04/2018. BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10/07/2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-2017. THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 06/08/2018 ON 18/06/2019 AGAINST EXT.P1 ORDER PENDING HEARING IN EXT.P4 APPEAL PENDING BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ON 10/06/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT YEAR 2016-2017. 07/08/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 14/08/2019 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO EXT.P5
:10: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22420/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-2016 ISSUED BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, 21/04/2018. BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10/07/2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-2016. THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 06/08/2018 ON 18/06/2019 AGAINST EXT.P1 ORDER PENDING BFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. HEARING IN EXT.P4 APPEAL PENDING BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ON 10/06/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT YEAR 2015-2016. 07/08/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 14/08/2019 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO EXT.P5.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Pawan Kumar Rajgaria vs. State Of West BengalCalcutta · 4 Nov 2026
- Mohammed Fazil vs. State Of ChhattisgarhChhattisgarh · 4 Nov 2026
- Tvl. Devaerakkam Mercy Mary vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 4 Nov 2026
- Procter And Gamble Health LTD vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S Ritika Ispat PVT. Limited, Balanda, Sundargarh vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
