Disposed

M/S.Maxwell Exim (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)

Kerala HC14 Nov 2014WP(C)/27636/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court heard a writ petition challenging the imposition of a condition by the appellate authority seeking satisfaction of a portion of disputed liability as a prerequisite for an interim stay. The court found the order reasoned and ordered allowed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted two weeks to comply with condition imposed in ext.P10 to avail benefit of interim stay.

M/S.Maxwell Exim (P) Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/23RD KARTHIKA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 27636 of 2014 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) : ---------------

¶7

M/S.MAXWELL EXIM PVT. LTD., NO. 24, GST ROAD, GUINDI, CHENNAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR'S POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI. R.JAMES. BY ADVS.SRI.S.SURESH BABU (CHERUNNIYOOR) SRI.AJI V.DEV.

¶8

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶9

---------------

¶10

1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM-691 012.

¶11

2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER-II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM-691 013.

¶12

3. TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶13

4. VILLAGE OFFICER KOTTAMKARA, KOLLAM-691 008.

¶14

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

RVS.

¶17

WP(C).No. 27636 of 2014 (D)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶20

EXT. P1:-	COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 1992-93 TO 1994-95 DATED 31/03/2005.
EXT. P1(A):-	COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 1995-96 DATED 21/11/2005.
EXT. P2:-	COPY OF THE PRE-ASSESSMENT NOTICE DATED 12/10/2011 UNDER THE KGST ACT ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 92-93.
EXT. P2(A):-	COPY OF THE PRE-ASSESSMENT NOTICE DATED 09/02/2012 UNDER THE KGST ACT ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 93-94.
EXT. P2(B):-	COPY OF THE PRE-ASSESSMENT NOTICE DATED 09/02/2012 UNDER THE KGST ACT ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 94-95.
EXT. P2(C):-	COPY OF THE PRE-ASSESSMENT NOTICE DATED 09/02/2012 UNDER THE KGST ACT ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 95-96.
EXT. P3:-	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN WP(C)NO.6555/2012 DATED 10/04/2012.
EXT. P4:-	COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 06/03/2013 OF THE ASSE3SSING AUTHORITY.
EXT. P5:-	COPY OF THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 10/04/2014 UNDER KGST ACT FOR THE YEAR 92-93.
EXT. P5(A):-	COPY OF THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 10/04/2014 UNDER KGST ACT FOR THE YEAR 93-94.
EXT. P5(B):-	COPY OF THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 10/04/2014 UNDER KGST ACT FOR THE YEAR 94-95.
EXT. P5(C):-	COPY OF THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 10/04/2014 UNDER KGST ACT FOR THE YEAR 95-96.
EXT. P6:-	COPY OF THE STATUTORY APPEAL FILED FOR THE YEAR 92-93 DATED 02/06/2014.
EXT. P6(A):-	COPY OF THE STATUTORY APPEAL FILED FOR THE YEAR 93-94 DATED 02/06/2014.
EXT. P6(B):-	COPY OF THE STATUTORY APPEAL FILED FOR THE YEAR 94-95 DATED 02/06/2014.
EXT. P6(C):-	COPY OF THE STATUTORY APPEAL FILED FOR THE YEAR 95-96 DATED 02/06/2014.
EXT. P7:-	COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY FILED FOR THE YEAR 92-93 DATED 22/07/2014.

¶21

WP(C).No. 27636 of 2014 (D)

¶22

EXT. P7(A):COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY FILED FOR THE YEAR 93-94 DATED 22/07/2014. EXT. P7(B):COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY FILED FOR THE YEAR 94-95 DATED 22/07/2014. EXT. P7(C):COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY FILED FOR THE YEAR 95-96 DATED 22/07/2014. EXT. P8:COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN FORM-16 IN MALAYALAM DATED 05/07/2014. EXT. P8(A):COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN FORM-16 IN ENGLISH DATED 05/07/2014. EXT. P8(B):COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT REEGARDING SALES OF PROPERTY DATED 05/07/2014. EXT. P9:COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11/08/2014 IN WP(C) NO.20693/14. EXT. P10:COPY OF THE STAY ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19/09/2014.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶24

-----------------------

NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

RVS.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶30

W.P(C). No. 27636 of 2014

¶31

Dated this the 14^th day of November, 2014

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

The petitioner is aggrieved of the condition imposed by the appellate authority while passing Ext.P10 interim order of stay on 19.09.2014, directing the petitioner to satisfy a portion of the disputed liability, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during pendency of the appeal.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, being aggrieved of the assessment orders, the petitioner preferred statutory appeals along with petition for stay. While considering the Interlocutory Applications, by the appellate authority, no proper application of mind was made and a condition has been imposed in a mechanical manner which is under challenge. It is also stated that the proceedings are 'barred by limitation' and hence seeks for interference by this Court.

¶35

The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that, the version of the petitioner is not at all correct and that the proceedings have been passed well within time and not 'barred by limitation'.

¶36

WP(c). No.27636 of 2014

¶37

¶38

The assessment in respect of the concerned assessment years was finalised and the matter was taken up at different levels, leading to Exts.P1 and P1(a) orders passed by the concerned Tribunal on 31.03.2005 & 21.11.2007 ordering remand. Pursuant to the order of remand, the petitioner was served with Ext.P2 series pre-assessment notices. Since many of the copies of the documents were not served to the petitioner, WP(C) No. 6555 of 2012 was filed, which led to Ext.P3 judgment, directing the concerned respondent to serve copies of the documents and to proceed with further steps. It was accordingly, that further notice was issued and the assessment was finalised as per Ext.P5 series orders. Being aggrieved of the said orders, the petitioner approached the appellate authority by filing Ext.P6 series appeals and Ext.P7 series petitions for stay. In view of the coercive proceedings, the petitioner filed WP(C) No.20693/2014, which was disposed of as per Ext.P9 judgment directing the appellate authority to pass appropriate orders in the I.A.s for stay. It was accordingly, that the matter was considered by the 1^st respondent, who passed Ext.P10 on 19.09.2014, imposing the condition as aforesaid, which in turn is under challenge.

¶39

WP(c). No.27636 of 2014

¶40

¶41

The learned Government Pleader points out that, there is absolutely no basis in putting up the contentions that the proceedings are barred by limitation. The sequence of events has been clearly discussed in Ext.P5 series pre-assessment orders; the first paragraph of which, being relevant, is extracted below:

¶42

“Final assessment in respect of the dealer M/s Maxwell Exim Pvt Ltd., Beach Road, Kollam for the year 92-93 was completed in this office on 30.06.1997. Aggrieved by this order assessee went in appeal before the Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Additional Bench, Thiruvananthapuram. The Hon'ble Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Thiruvananthapuram remanded the case back to the assessing authority for fresh disposal vide order No. 127, 128, 129, 130, 131 and 132/02 dated 31/03/2005. The dealer has also filed sales tax revision case before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in STR No.260 and 263/09 and Dealer has also approached Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and filed writ petition WP(C) No.6554 and 6555 of 2012(T) for the perusal of documents and seized records. In compliance to the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala dealer in Writ Petition WP(C) No.6554 and 6555 of 2012(T), the assessee was allowed to persue and receive the copies of the records as requested by the assessee from this office. Even after supplying the copies of relevant records asked for, the dealer has not produced the following Books of Accounts and other documents related to their business for the year 1992-93. Instead of producing the following Books of Accounts, the dealer was always trying to drag

¶43

WP(c). No.27636 of 2014

¶44

¶45

on the case by raising flimsy contention and other tactics to escape from the assessment.”

¶46

After hearing both the sides this Court finds that, the order passed by the appellate authority vide Ext.P10 is a reasoned order and that the same does not warrant any interference, invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court in this writ petition.

¶47

The case of the petitioner that the proceedings are 'barred by limitation' and such other aspects could be agitated before the appellate authority at the time of final hearing. However, in view of the fact that the time stipulated to satisfy the condition imposed as per Ext.P10 is already over, the petitioner is given a further period of 'two weeks' to comply with the requirements so as to enjoy the benefit of interim stay during pendency of the appeal.

¶48

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶51

M/S.Maxwell Exim (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Maxwell Exim (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)

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

Zakkeer Hussain Vs Federal Bank Ltd.

Nabeel Ansari Vs Superintendent of Customs

Madeesh M.P. Vs the Federal Bank

Tessy Tomy Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Kerala State Nirmithi Kendra Vs Deputy Tahsildar

E.K.Vijayan Vs Federal Bank Ltd.