Partly allowed

Sobha Ltd. (Formerly Sobha Developers Ltd.) v. the Asst. Commissioner (Works Contract)

Kerala HC16 Jul 2019OP (TAX)/5/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an original petition challenging an interim order from the VAT Appellate Tribunal. The Court equitably reduced the interim payment requirement from 30% to 20% while maintaining the bond condition, allowing the appeal disposal.

What did the court decide?

Modifying the impugned order by directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the disputed amount to be adjudicated and to execute a simple bond for the balance within 30 days.

Sobha Ltd. (Formerly Sobha Developers Ltd.) Vs the… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶7

OP (TAX).No.5 of 2019

¶8

(AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDL.BENCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN IP NO.547/18 IN T.A. (VAT) NO.394/18 DATED 13.06.2019)

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

SOBHA LTD. (FORMERLY SOBHA DEVELOPERS LTD.) ANUGRAHA, SRIPURAM, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY V.G.VENUGOPAL.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) SRI.M.RAJAGOPAL

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER (WORKS CONTRACT), COMMERCIAL TAXES, TAX TOWERS, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.

¶14

2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), TAX TOWERS, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.

¶15

3 THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ADDL.BENCH, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010.

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SR GP TAX MOHAMMED RAFIQ

¶18

THIS OP TAX HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O.P.(Tax).No.5 of 2019

¶20

-:2:-

¶21

C.K.ABDUL REHIM &

¶22

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI,JJ.

¶23

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P(Tax) No.5 of 2019

¶24

- - - - Dated this the 16^th day of July,2019

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶27

Challenge raised is against Ext.P5 interim order passed by the Kerala Value Added Tax/Agricultural Income Tax & Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Thiruvananthapuram, in I.P. No.547 of 2018 in T.A.(VAT) No.394 of 2018, dated 13.06.2019. Assessment made with respect to the year 2013-14 was challenged at the instance of the petitioner before the first Appellate Authority. Not being satisfied with the order passed, the petitioner took up the matter in a second appeal before the Tribunal. An interim application was moved seeking stay against realisation of the amounts in dispute, pending disposal of the appeal. The Tribunal found that there is no payment effected so far.

¶28

O.P.(Tax).No.5 of 2019

¶29

-:3:-

¶30

Therefore it was insisted upon that the petitioner should pay 30% of the total demand, for granting interim stay, and also to execute a bond for the balance amount. The petitioner contends that the order is passed quite mechanically without adverting to the grounds raised and without any proper application of mind with respect to merits of the appeal. Insistence made merely on the basis that no payment is made so far, cannot be taken as a legal approach for imposing the condition, is the argument.

¶31

Heard; learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶32

Even though we are convinced that the prima facie appreciation of merit is not reflected in the impugned order, we are not proposing to remit the matter for fresh consideration and for passing fresh orders, because we are of the opinion that the appeal itself can be heard on an early date. As an equitable relief, we think it appropriate to reduce the quantum of interim payment directed, pending disposal of the appeal.

¶33

Hence the above Original Petition is disposed of by

¶34

O.P.(Tax).No.5 of 2019

¶35

-:4:-

¶36

modifying the impugned order of the Tribunal by directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount due, which is disputed in the appeal and to execute a simple bond for the balance amount, within 30 days from today. If such deposit is made, the Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal at the earliest possible.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI JUDGE

¶41

DST

¶42

O.P.(Tax).No.5 of 2019

¶43

-:5:-

¶44

APPENDIX

¶45

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶46

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20.5.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER DATED 12.2.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF EXT.P1. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED AGAINST EXT-P2 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY FILED IN EXT-P3 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF STAY ORDER DATED 13.6.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶47

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶48

//True copy//

¶49

P.A.To Judge

Sobha Ltd. (Formerly Sobha Developers Ltd.) v. the Asst. Commissioner (Works Contract)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sobha Ltd. (Formerly Sobha Developers Ltd.) v. the Asst. Commissioner (Works Contract)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Vice-Chancellor Vs the City Policecommissioner

Dr.P.P.Dileepkumar Vs the Commissioner of Police

Kerala State Warehousing Corporation Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

Centre for Consumer Education, Vs State of Kerala

Nalupurapattil Hassainar Vs the Special Tahsildar, Laa

Klassic Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Indtech Interiors and Constructions Pvt. Ltd.