Allowed

Gopakumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jan 2019WP(C)/92/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition where a registered dealer challenged coercive recovery steps taken by tax authorities despite a pending stay petition before the appellate authority. The High Court held that procedural fairness requires authorities to defer until the stay petition is disposed of. The writ was dismissed with a direction.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 3rd respondent considers the stay petition.

Gopakumar Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

FRIDAY,THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 14TH POUSHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 92 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

GOPAKUMAR, PROPRIETOR, M/S.PROCON ASSOCIATES, THIRUMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 006.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.SADASIVAN SMT.P.S.SETHULEKSHMY SRI.C.V.SASI SRI.JOY P.JOSE SRI.K.JAYAMOHANAN PILLAI SRI.K.N.KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT.TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2 STATE TAX OFFICER (W.C),STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, TAX TOWERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.

¶12

3 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) TAX TOWERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.

¶13

4 DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.

¶14

DR THUSHARA JAMES, GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 92 of 2019

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('KVAT Act') on the rolls of the 2^nd respondent, questioned the Ext.P1 assessment order, before the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner has also filed a stay petition in the appeal. Ventilating his grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶21

I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time his statutory remedy of filing an appeal. It appears that he has also filed a stay petition. Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition.

¶22

Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 3^rd respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the 3^rd respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

WP(C).No. 92 of 2019

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶30

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25-03-2018 FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 31-122018 FILED BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH GROUNDS OF APPEAL. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF PETITION FOR STAY OF COLLECTION DATED 31-12-2018 FILED BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 RECOVERY NOTICE RRC NO.2018/8599/01 DATED 16-08-2018 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE SD

Gopakumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopakumar v. State of Kerala

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

M/S. Corbel Pre-Laminated Boards India (P) Limited Vs the State GST Officer

Tristar Consumable Products and Manufacturing India (P) Ltd. Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Salim Mannel Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Work Contract)

M/S. Hotel Sevenseas Vs the Asst. Commissioner of State Tax - IV

Anand Agencies Vs State Tax Officer

Rajesh v. Vs State of Kerala