Writ Appeal dismissed refusing interference as effective statutory remedy under Section 59 of KVAT Act exists. Ordered assessing authority restrained from passing modified orders for one month to facilitate revision.
Assessing authority restrained from passing modified orders for one month; interim stay of recovery measures maintained.
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 C.K.ABDUL REHIM
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
WA.No.2415 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 30200/2019(Y) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS :
DR.SREEDEVI, D/O.SRI.MEKKATUKKATIL BHAVANANDAN, PROPRIETRIX, M/S.SRIBHAGAVATHY MADOM AYURVEDA NIKETANAM, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR - 3.
BY ADVS. SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN SMT.G.DEEPA
RESPONDENTS:RESPONDENTS :
1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, TAX COMPLEX, POOTHOLE, TRICHUR - 680 004.
STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, TAX COMPLEX, POOTHOLE, TRICHUR - 680 004.
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP-SRI. MOHAMMED RAFIQ
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA.No.2415 OF 2019
2
C.K.ABDUL REHIM & T.V.ANILKUMAR, JJ.
===============================
W.A.No.2415 of 2019
===============================
Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2019
JUDGMENT
C.K.Abdul Rehim, J.
The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.30200/2019 is in appeal against judgment of the Single Judge, dated 11th November, 2019. The respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition.
WA.No.2415 OF 2019
3
learned Single Judge had shown indulgence in directing to keep in abeyance the recovery steps based on the impugned orders, for a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, so as to enable the appellant to move before the Revisional Authorioty. It is aggrieved by the said judgment, the above appeal is filed.
WA.No.2415 OF 2019
4
WA.No.2415 OF 2019
5
whether the product of the appellant will fall under entry 36 in accordance with Rule 23 of the Rules of Interpretation, is the question which need ultimate decision. We do not find any authoritative pronouncement of this court or the hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to the interpretation of the amended provision. Therefore, whether the exercise done by the Ist respondent by invoking the powers under Section 56(1) is sustainable or not, can be decided only on an elaborate consideration into the merits of the issue. In that respect, we perfectly agree with the findings rendered by the learned Single Judge that the orders do not suffer from any jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice or contravention of the provisions. All the contentions raised herein above can be effectively agitated in a properly constituted Revision Petitions filed under Section 59 of the KVAT Act. Therefore, we are not persuaded to interfere in the matter in this intra-court appeal filed.
WA.No.2415 OF 2019
6
In order to facilitate the appellant to take the steps as mentioned above, the assessing authority is restrained from passing any modified orders pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 for a period of one month from today.
The above writ appeal is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
C.K.ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE Sd/-
rkj
T.V.ANILKUMAR
JUDGE
WA.No.2415 OF 2019
7
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE RE ASSESSMENT NOTICE DT. 11/11/2019 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEARS 2009-2010.
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE RE ASSESSMENT NOTICE DT.11/11/2019 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere under Article 226 when an effective statutory remedy under Section 59 of the KVAT Act is available.
Whether the impugned cancellation orders under Section 56 of the KVAT Act suffer from jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice.
What interim restrictions apply to the assessing authority regarding modified orders pending a revision petition.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
DR.SREEDEVI
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX
THE STATE COMMISSIONER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT
THE STATE OF KERALA
C.K.ABDUL REHIM
T.V.ANILKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
