The Court quashed the appellate authority's order dismissing stay petitions for tax assessments for years 2012-13 and 2013-14. It directed fresh consideration of appeals and kept recovery proceedings in abeyance.
Quashed Ext.P8 order; directed consideration of appeals within two months; recovery proceedings kept in abeyance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/18TH POUSHA, 1937
WP(C).No. 190 of 2016 (W)
PETITIONER :
ABDUL MAJEED, M/S.ASKAR POULTRY FARM, X/478A, ATTAYAMPATHY, MUTHALAMADA, GOVINDAPURAM (P.O), CHITTUR, PALAKKAD.
BY ADVS.SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
CHITTUR - 678 104.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
PALAKKAD - 678 001.
3. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, CHITTUR - 678 104.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LILLY.K.T.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 190 of 2016 (W)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
| EXT.P-1: | TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 DATED 3.7.2014 |
|---|---|
| EXT.P-2: | TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATED 3.7.2014 |
| EXT.P-3: | TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 DATED 27.9.2014 |
| EXT.P-4: | TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATED 27.9.2014 |
| EXT.P-5: | TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 DATED 27.9.2014 |
| EXT.P-6: | TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATED 27.9.2014 |
| EXT.P-7: | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC NO.13646 OF 2015 DATED 8.5.2015 |
| EXT.P-8: | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEARS 2012-13 AND 2013-14 DATED 11.11.2015 |
| EXT.P-9: | TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 DATED 10.4.2015 |
| EXT.P-10: | TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DATED 10.4.2015 |
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
............................................................. W.P.(C).No.190 of 2016
............................................................. Dated this the 8th day of January, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P8 order passed by the 2nd respondent, dismissing stay petitions filed along with appeals against assessment orders for the assessment years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is essentially that, while passing Ext.P8 order, the 2nd respondent did not exercise his discretion validly.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that, the petitioner had, on an earlier occasion, challenging an order passed by the appellate authority directing the petitioner to pay 30% of the
-2-
W.P.(C). No. 190 of 2016
disputed amount as a condition for hearing the appeals, approached this Court through W.P.(C).No.13646 of 2015, and by Ext.P7 judgment, this Court had directed the appellate authority to pass fresh orders in the stay petitions preferred by the petitioner. In Ext.P8 order passed by the appellate authority pursuant to Ext.P7 judgment of this Court, the appellate authority has dismissed the stay petitions. The learned Government Pleader on instructions would submit that the change in stand of the appellate authority was occasioned on account of the fact that, during the interregnum, one of the appeals pertaining to an earlier assessment year had already been decided against the petitioner and taking note of the said development, the appellate authority decided to dismiss the stay petitions. It is also pointed out that the appeals are posted for hearing on 11.01.2016. Taking note of the said submission of the learned Government Pleader on instructions, I am of the view that, the interests of justice would be served by quashing Ext.P8 order, to the extent it contemplates the payment of confirmed tax and interest amount by the petitioner during the pendency of the appeals, and directing the 2nd respondent appellate authority to consider and pass orders on Exts.P3 and P4 appeals after hearing the petitioner within a
-3-
W.P.(C). No. 190 of 2016
period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that till such time as orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed, and communicated to the petitioner, further proceedings for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Exts.P1 and P2 assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
mns/08.01.16
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the appellate authority's order dismissing stay petitions and directing payment of tax pending appeals.
Whether pending tax recovery proceedings should be kept in abeyance while appeals are sub judice.
Whether the appellate authority exercised its discretion validly in dismissing the stay petition after a related appeal was already decided against the petitioner.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Abdul Majeed
The Commercial Tax Officer, Department of Commercial Taxes, Chittur
The Assistant Commissioner (Appeals), Department of Commercial Taxes, Palakkad
Deputy Tahsildar, Revenue Recovery, Chittur
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
