Allowed

Metrolla Steels Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment)

Kerala HC10 Dec 2014WP(C)/25677/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought stay on tax appeals pending resolution of exemption certificate disputes. Court observed that underlying exemption issues are pending before Supreme Court. Held that appellate authority must await Supreme Court decision before deciding pending appeals.

What did the court decide?

Interim order made absolute directing the 2nd respondent to await the Supreme Court decision in Civil Appeal Nos.205/2013, 206/2013, 208/2013, and 209/2013 before deciding pending appeals.

Metrolla Steels Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner… — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 25677 of 2009 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

METROLLA STEELS LTD., PAIPRA, THRIKKALATHUR, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR KURIAN VARGHESE.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER (ASSMT), COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, MATTANCHERRY.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM.

¶12

3. THE DY.COMMISSIONER (GENERAL), COMMERCIAL TAXES, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

¶13

4. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶14

5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KESTON ROAD, KAWDIAR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶15

R, BY ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.) R,R5 BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE R,R5 BY ADV. SMT.MARIAM MATHAI R1 TO 4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY.K.T. R BY SRI.SAJI VARGHESE,SC FOR KSIDC R BY SRI.SAJI VARGHESE,SC FOR KSIDC

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C).NO.25677/2009

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P1: COPY OF G.O. DATED 26.11.93. EXT.P2: COPY OF G.O. DATED 19.4.94. EXT.P3: COPY OF EXEMPTION ORDERS DATED 30.6.1998 AND 7.12.2002. EXT.P4: COPY OF ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 15.7.2002. EXT.P5: COPY OF LETTER DATED 21.4.2003 OF 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF LETTER DATED 15.10.2005 OF 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF ORDER DATED 5.1.2007 IN W.P.(C).NO.1455 OF 2006. EXT.P8: COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.2.2007 FOR 2001-02.

¶21

EXT.P9: COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 27.2.2007 AND 27.4.2007 FOR 2002-03.

¶22

EXT.P10: COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM AGAINST EXT.P8. EXT.P11: COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM AGAINST EXT.P9. EXT.P12: COPY OF DEFERMENT PETITION FILED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P13: COPY OF POSTING NOTICE DATED 28.8.2009.

¶23

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶24

//TRUE COPY//

¶25

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶26

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶27

W.P.(C).NO.25677 OF 2009 (D) ----------------------------------Dated this the 10^th day of December, 2014

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The petitioner is a manufacturer of steel ingots and iron bars and a dealer registered under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as the 'KGST Act' on the rolls of the 1^st respondent. It is also a dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, hereinafter referred to as the 'KVAT Act'. It is the case of the petitioner that as per Ext.P3 orders, the petitioner was granted exemption under the Notification SRO.No.1729/93 for a period of seven years commencing from 24.12.1996. It had effected additional investments in 11 stages within the original period of exemption and an application seeking the benefit of exemption was forwarded to the 5^th respondent for issuing the eligibility certificate. The 5^th respondent however issued the eligibility certificate only in respect of one application and did not issue the eligibility certificate in respect of the other application. Even on the one application that was cleared by the 5^th respondent, the 3^rd respondent did not issue the necessary exemption certificate. The petitioner was therefore constrained to prefer W.P.(C).No.1455/2006 seeking a direction to the 3^rd respondent

¶30

W.P.(C).No.25677/2009

¶31

¶32

to issue the exemption certificate and W.P.(C).No.16921/2006 seeking a direction to the 5^th respondent to issue the eligibility certificates in respect of the remaining applications submitted by the petitioner. The present writ petition was filed at a stage when the appeals preferred by the petitioner, against assessment orders passed for the years 2001-02 and 2002-03, wherein the claim for exemption of the petitioner was denied by the Assessing authority, was pending consideration before the 2^nd respondent Appellate Authority. Exts.P10 and P11 are the appeals preferred by the petitioner which are stated to be pending before the Appellate authority. The relief prayed for in the writ petition is for a direction to the 2^nd respondent Appellate authority to defer from passing any orders on Exts.P10 and P11 appeals till such time as a decision is taken by the 5^th respondent and the 3^rd respondent in the matter of grant of eligibility certificates and exemption certificates respectively.

¶33

It is noted that by an order dated 15.9.2009, this Court granted an interim stay against disposal of Exts.P10 and P11 appeals pending disposal of the writ petition. It is now brought to my notice that W.P.(C).No.1455/2006 and W.P.(C).No.16921/2006 which were pending at the time of filing of the present writ petition, were

¶34

W.P.(C).No.25677/2009

¶35

¶36

disposed by a common judgment dated 20.3.2010. Against the said judgment, the petitioner preferred W.A.No.1542/2010 and W.A.No.1374/2010, both of which came to be disposed by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 4.2.2011. It is submitted that against the said judgment of the Division Bench, the State Government has preferred appeals before the Supreme Court, which are numbered as Civil Appeal Nos.205/2013 and 206/2013 and the petitioner has also preferred separate appeals which are numbered as Civil Appeal Nos.208/2013 and 209/2013. The said appeals are stated to be pending consideration by the Supreme Court.

¶37

I have heard Sri.S.Anil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Smt.Mariam Mathai, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 5^th respondent as also Smt.Lilly.K.T., the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents.

¶38

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I am of the view that insofar as the issue of grant of eligibility certificates as also the exemption certificates by the 5^th respondent and the 3^rd respondent

¶39

W.P.(C).No.25677/2009

¶40

¶41

respectively, will be decided only pursuant to the disposal of the appeals preferred by the State Government as well as the petitioner before the Supreme Court, there will be no purpose served in permitting the 2^nd respondent Appellate Authority to decide the appeals pending before him for the assessment years in question. I feel therefore that the present writ petition can be disposed by making the interim order absolute by directing the 2^nd respondent to await the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.205/2013, 206/2013, 208/2013 and 209/2013 before passing final orders in Exts.P10 and P11 appeals preferred by the petitioner, and which are pending before the 2^nd respondent. I make it clear that the petitioner shall bring to the notice of the 2^nd respondent the outcome of the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court so as to enable the 2^nd respondent to pass orders in the appeal immediately thereafter.

¶42

The writ petition is disposed as above.

¶43

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶44

prp

Metrolla Steels Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Metrolla Steels Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.P.Amina Nazim Vs Intelligence Officer

Susal a.Chinnan Vs the Officer in Charge

M/S.Gold City Vs the Commercial Tax Officer and Others

B.Krishna Kumar Vs the Jt.Rto, Trippunithura

Smt.Vijila Vs Inspecting Asst. Commissioner.

The Headmaster Vs State of Kerala