Petitioner challenged coercive recovery initiated during appeal pendency. Court directed first respondent to dispose applications within six weeks and stay further coercive steps until then.
Stayed further coercive steps pending disposal of delay condonation and stay applications within six weeks.
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 ALEXANDER THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 17TH POUSHA, 1941
WP(C).No.19 OF 2020(B)
PETITIONER:
M/S.MANGALAM GOLD NJATTUVETTY COMPLEX, OLLUKKARA, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, BESTIN P.JOSE.
BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE TAX OFFICER (IB) STATE GST DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR-680001.
2 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM-682015.
SMT.TUSHARA JAMES, GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C) No.19 of 2020
2
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
===========================
W.P(C) No.19 of 2020
=========================== Dated this the 07th day of January, 2020
JUDGMENT
Against Ext.P1 order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P4 stay petition, along with Ext.P3 petition to condone delay. The petitioner's grievance is that during the pendency of the stay petition, coercive recovery proceedings have been initiated by the assessing authority for recovery of the disputed amounts.
for the petitioner and Smt.Thushara James, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
W.P(C) No.19 of 2020
3
pass orders on those applications without much delay, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Until orders are thus passed on the abovesaid delay condonation and stay application, further coercive steps for enforcement of the impugned order will be kept in abeyance.
With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE
vgd
W.P(C) No.19 of 2020
4
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 | COPY OF RESPONDEN 16.10.201 |
ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST T FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DATED 9. |
|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | COPY OF BEFORE DATED 21. |
APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER THE 2ND RESPONDENT - 2017-18 12.2019. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | COPY OF PETITIONE DATED 21. |
DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE R BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 12.2019. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | COPY OF PETITIONE DATED 21. |
STAY PETITION FILED BY THE R BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 12.2019. |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether coercive recovery proceedings can be stayed pending disposal of delay condonation and stay applications in downstream appeal?
What directives can be issued to the assessing authority to address the delay in hearing condonation and stay applications?
M/S.MANGALAM GOLD NJATTUVETTY COMPLEX
THE STATE TAX OFFICER (IB)
THE ASST. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)
ALEXANDER THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
