The Court dismissed a review petition against an interim order requiring the petitioner to pay 25% of a tax demand before stays on recovery could be granted, holding the order inaryana within peculiar circumstances precluding review.
The Review Petition is dismissed.
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 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021/7TH PHALGUNA, 1942
R.P.No.119 OF 2021 IN W.P(C).NO.28424 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2020 IN W.P(C).NO.28424/2020(C) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER IN THE RP & PETITIONER IN THE WP(C):
M/S.UNIQUE TREAD
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, KOCHUVELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695021, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, LEN PHILIP.
BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON
SMT.MEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENTS IN THE RP & PETITIONER IN THE WP(C):
BY SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN, SR. GOVT. PLEADER
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.No.119/2021
in :: 2 ::
W.P.(C).No.28424/2020
O R D E R
The Review Petition is filed seeking a review of an interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C).No.28424/2020, whereby, a stay was granted against recovery of the balance demand in Exts.P10 and P10(a) orders on condition that the petitioner paid 25% of the amounts demand in the said orders. The petitioner states that in O.T.Revisions that have been filed against orders of the Tribunal on the same issue, a Division Bench of this Court has granted a complete stay against recovery of the amounts pending disposal of the O.T. Revisions. Citing the said orders, it is contended that the petitioner in the writ petition also ought to be granted a similar benefit.
R.P.No.119/2021 in :: 3 :: W.P.(C).No.28424/2020
therein, the peculiar circumstances under which this Court directed the payment of 25% as a condition for grant of stay against recovery of the balance amounts of tax due from the petitioner was that the petitioner had approached this Court against the appellate order of the First Appellate Authority, without having first approached the Tribunal against the said order. The contention in the writ petition was essentially that going to the Tribunal would be an exercise in futility since the Tribunal had already decided the issue against the petitioner in the Tax Appeal that eventually reached this Court through the O.T.Revisions referred above. It was under those circumstances that this Court entertained the writ petition itself and directed the petitioner to remit 25% of the disputed tax pending disposal of the writ petition.
In my view, the impugned order does not call for any review. The Review Petition therefore fails, and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
prp/27/2/21
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the interim order directing payment of 25% of disputed tax as a condition for stay qualifies for review.
M/s. Unique Tread
Smt. Meera V. Menon
The State Tax Officer SGST Department
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
