M/S.PEE VEE AR FUEL SERVICES vs. THE STATE TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/22406/2019HC KeralaKLHC01057643201919 August 2019Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, perusing the relevant documents (Exts.P1, P2, P3, and P4), found a prima facie case for issuing necessary directions to the second respondent (Assistant Commissioner (Appeals)). The Court directed the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the delay condonation petition (Ext.P3) and the stay petition (Ext.P4) as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Additionally, the respondents were directed not to take coercive steps or recover the amounts determined in the orders under appeal for ten weeks from the date of the judgment. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the stay application itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of expeditious disposal.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Pee Vee Ar Fuel Services, filed an appeal (Ext.P2) against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. The appeal was filed with a delay condonation petition (Ext.P3) for 102 days and a stay petition (Ext.P4). The petitioner sought a direction for the appellate authority to expeditiously consider and dispose of these applications. The petitioner argued that the mere pendency of an appeal does not grant a stay and that the assessing officer might initiate recovery proceedings, rendering the appeal ineffective. The petitioner contended that orders on delay and stay petitions should be passed promptly to protect the appellant's interest.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should direct the appellate authority to expeditiously consider and dispose of the delay condonation petition (Ext.P3) and the stay petition (Ext.P4) filed by the petitioner? (Question of procedure and administrative efficiency, turning on principles of natural justice and timely redressal). Assessee's Contentions: - The mere filing or pendency of an appeal does not constitute a grant of stay by the appellate authority. - Delay in disposing of the stay and delay condonation petitions allows the assessing officer to take recovery steps, potentially rendering the statutory appeal academic or ineffective. - The law mandates expeditious disposal of delay condonation and stay petitions to protect the interest of the appellant pending appeal. Revenue's Contentions: - No specific contentions from the revenue are recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 25(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1941 WP(C).No.22406 OF 2019(A) PETITIONER/S: M/S.PEE VEE AR FUEL SERVICES PUDUR ROAD, PALLIPPURAM, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.P.R.VENKITESWARAN. BY ADVS. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.S.JAFFERALI RESPONDENT/S:

THE STATE TAX OFFICER FIRST CIRCLE, PALAKKAD-678001.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), PALAKKAD-678001.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, PALAKKAD-678001. GP. DR.THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.22406 OF 2019(A) -2- JUDGMENT The petitioner filed appeal in Ext.P2 aggrieved by the orders of assessment in Ext.P1 made under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. The petitioner has filed the appeal with a delay condonation petition of 102 days in Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 stay petition. The petitioner prays for appropriate direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of Exts.P3 and P4 expeditiously. 2. The case of petitioner is that either the mere filing of appeal or mere pendency of appeal does not amount to granting stay by the appellate authority. The delay in considering and disposing of Exts.P3 and P4 results in the assessing officer taking steps for recovering the tax amount which is under challenge in Ext.P2. The assessing officer, if is successful in his effort the statutory appeal would become either academic or ineffective. It is further contended by the petitioner that in the manner the law provides for protecting the interest of appellant pending appeal, the orders on delay petition and stay petition are passed expeditiously. Hence the

WP(C).No.22406 OF 2019(A) -3- writ petition. 3. Perused Exts.P1, P2, P3 and P4. Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to 2nd respondent to dispose of the delay condonation petition and stay petition in Exts.P3 and P4 respectively. Having regard to the limited prayer and the grounds referred to above, this Court is satisfied that the writ petition can be disposed of by this order: (a) The appellate authority/ 2nd respondent considers and disposes of Exts.P3 and P4 applications as early as possible, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. (b) The respondents are directed not to take coercive steps or recover the amounts determined in the orders under appeal for ten weeks from today. Sd/- S.V.BHATTI JUDGE JS

WP(C).No.22406 OF 2019(A) -4- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 02.05.2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.07.2019. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.07.2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.07.2019. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 03.08.2019. RESPONDENTS'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →