MUHAMMED SIDDIQ vs. THE STATE TAX OFFICER-I, NORTH PARAVOOR ON DEPUTATION TO SPECIAL TEAM,

WP(C)/21208/2019HC KeralaKLHC01054211201905 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 2nd respondent (appellate authority). The Court was satisfied that the writ petition could be disposed of based on the limited prayer and grounds presented. The appellate authority (2nd respondent) was directed 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 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 principle is that interlocutory applications for condonation of delay and stay pending appeal should be considered expeditiously to preserve the efficacy of the appellate process.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sri. Muhammed Siddiq, proprietor of Atlas Ply Boards, filed an appeal (Ext.P2) against an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed under the Central Sales Tax Act. The appeal was filed with a delay of 7 days, accompanied by a delay condonation petition (Ext.P3) and a stay petition (Ext.P4). The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction to the appellate authority (2nd respondent) to expeditiously consider and dispose of the delay condonation and stay petitions. The petitioner argued that the delay in deciding these petitions would allow the assessing officer to initiate recovery proceedings, rendering the statutory appeal ineffective. The petitioner contended that the law mandates expeditious disposal of such interlocutory applications to protect the appellant's interest pending appeal.

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, as a question of procedural propriety and effective redressal of grievances. Contentions: Assessee (Petitioner): The mere filing or pendency of an appeal does not grant a stay. Delay in deciding the delay condonation and stay petitions allows the assessing officer to take recovery steps, which would render the appeal academic or ineffective. The law requires expeditious disposal of such applications to protect the appellant's interest. Revenue (Respondents): No specific contentions are recorded in the judgment for the revenue regarding the delay in disposal of the petitions.

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 05TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1941 PETITIONER : SRI. MUHAMMED SIDDIQ, PROPRIETOR, ATLAS PLY BOARDS, ASAMANOOR, ODAKKALI, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADVS. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.ANTONY JONES RESPONDENTS :

THE STATE TAX OFFICER-I, NORTH PARAVOOR ON DEPUTATION TO SPECIAL TEAM, PERUMBAVOOR-683542.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), STATE GOODS SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM-682015.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, MUVATTUPUZHA-686661. OTHER PRESENT: GOVERNMENT PLEADER DR. THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT The petitioner filed appeal in Ext.P2 aggrieved by the order of assessment in Ext.P1 made under the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner has filed the appeals with a delay condonation petition of 7 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 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 /True Copy/ NS P.A. To Judge

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER CST ACT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 25.02.2019. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.06.2019. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.06.2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.06.2019. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 08.07.2019. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →