RAJ HOME APPLIANCES vs. STATE TAX OFFICER-2

WP(C)/29559/2019HC KeralaKLHC01076955201904 November 2019Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court condoned the delay of 60 days in filing the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals). The Court directed the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) to consider and pass reasoned orders on the stay petition (Ext.P5) within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Furthermore, recovery steps for the amounts demanded pursuant to the demand notice (Ext.P2) were ordered to be kept in abeyance until such time as orders were passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to produce copies of the writ petition and the judgment before the 2nd respondent for further action. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Raj Home Appliances, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner was aggrieved by an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed under the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act for the assessment year 2013-14. The petitioner had filed an appeal (Ext.P3) before the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) (2nd respondent), along with a delay condonation petition (Ext.P4) and a stay petition (Ext.P5). The delay in filing the appeal was 60 days. The petitioner's primary prayer was for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the stay petition and to keep recovery steps in abeyance in the interim.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 60 days in filing the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) should be condoned, and if so, what directions should be issued regarding the consideration of the stay petition and the stay of recovery proceedings. (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the procedural provisions of the KVAT Act and the inherent powers of the appellate authority). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the expeditious disposal of the stay petition and a stay on recovery proceedings pending the decision on the appeal. The petitioner highlighted that the delay was only 60 days. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the delay or the stay petition. The Government Pleader appeared for the respondents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

KVAT Act

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 MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019/13TH KARTHIKA, 1941 W.P(C).No.29559 OF 2019 PETITIONER: M/S.RAJ HOME APPLIANCES MAIN ROAD, KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, K.S.PRASANNA, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.BABURAJ. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS:

STATE TAX OFFICER-2 DEPARTMENT OF STATE GOODS & SERVICE TAXES, KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE-673620.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF STATE GOODS & SERVICE TAXES, KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE-673620.

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAX, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. BY SMT.M.M.JASMINE, GOVT. PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C).No.29559/2019 : 2 :

J U D G M E N T Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the KVAT Act, for the assessment year 2013-14, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 appeal together with Ext.P4 delay condonation petition as also Ext.P5 stay petition before the 2nd respondent. The limited prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the stay petition and to keep in abeyance recovery steps, in the meanwhile. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. Taking note of the fact that the delay occassioned in filing the appeal before the 2nd respondent is only 60 days, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay, and dispose the writ petition, by directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass reasoned orders on Ext.P5 stay petition within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Recovery steps for recovery of amounts, pursuant to Ext.P2 demand notice, shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed

W.P.(C).No.29559/2019 : 3 : by the 2nd respondent, as directed, and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 2nd respondent, for further action. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp/4/11/19

W.P.(C).No.29559/2019 : 4 : APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 THE

TRUE

COPY

THE

ORDER NO.32111157813/13-14 DATED 31.10.2018. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DEMANDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.304914/-. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION. EXHIBIT P5 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED FOR STAYING THE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS. NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →