Disposed

Medical and Visual Technologies Ltd. v. the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)

Kerala HC7 Jan 2021WP(C)/350/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the pending statutory appeal. Pending stay application consideration, enforcement of the demand notice must be deferred. No statutory provision was acted upon.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to take up and dispose of the appeal and consider the stay application; enforcement of the demand notice deferred pending stay order.

Medical and Visual Technologies Ltd. Vs the Deputy… — GST and Indirect Tax | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942 WP(C).No.350 OF 2021(P)

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

MEDICAL AND VISUAL TECHNOLOGIES LTD TC 14/1479,PARIS ROAD, BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶7

BY ADVS. SRI.S.JATHIN DAS SMT.S.SOUMYA ISSAC

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.

¶10

2 THE STATE TAX OFFICER, 1ST CIRCLE,SGST DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, TAX TOWER, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

SMT. THUSHARA JAMES - GP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.350 OF 2021(P)

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 7^th day of January 2021

¶18

The petitioner has approached this Court

¶19

seeking a direction to the 1^st respondent to take up and dispose of Exts.P3 and P4, which are the statutory appeal and Interlocutory Application for stay preferred by him under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax and Rules. According to the petitioner, even though his appeal and application for stay are pending before the 1^st respondent, steps have been taken to enforce Ext.P2 demand notice; and he, therefore, prays that the same be directed to deferred until such time as the appeal is finally decided.

¶20

In response to the afore submissions of

¶21

Shri.Jathin Das S., the learned counsel for the

¶22

petitioner, Smt.Thushara James - learned Government Pleader, submitted that there is no legal impediment in the 1^st respondent taking up Ext.P3 appeal along with Ext.P4 stay application and to pass orders thereon. She submitted that

¶23

¶24

WP(C).No.350 OF 2021(P)

¶25

this will be done at the earliest and that until

¶26

such time as a decision is taken by the said Authority on Ext.P4, the demand made through Ext.P3 will not be enforced. She, therefore, prays that this writ petition be ordered in such terms.

¶27

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ

¶28

petition and direct the 1^st respondent to take up Ext.P3 and dispose it of; and in the meanwhile, he shall consider Ext.P4 application for stay and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as is possible but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶29

Needless to say, until such time as orders are issued on Ext.P4 and communicated to the petitioner, all further action based on Ext.P2

¶30

shall stand deferred.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

¶35

WP(C).No.350 OF 2021(P)

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶39

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.10.2020 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 30.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 14.12.2020. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 14.12.2020.

¶40

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶41

¶42

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Medical and Visual Technologies Ltd. v. the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Medical and Visual Technologies Ltd. v. the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prasannakumar Vs Hdfc Bank

Anoop Poulose Vs Joint Labour Commissioner

Ashai Kumar Vs the Trivandrum Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

The Mes International School Vs State Bank of India

Bobina Jacob Vs the Labour Commissioner

Venu Kumar.K Vs State Bank of India