Disposed

Abhijith Mohan v. the Asst. Commissioner

Kerala HC12 Jan 2022WP(C)/904/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an assessee under the Central Sales Tax Act, filed a writ petition apprehending coercive proceedings before a stay petition filed with the VAT Appellate Tribunal was considered. The court directed the Tribunal to consider the stay application within three months and keep coercive proceedings in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 stay petition within three months and keep all coercive proceedings in abeyance.

Abhijith Mohan Vs the Asst. Commissioner — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 22ND POUSHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 904 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ABHIJITH MOHAN

¶8

PROPRIETOR, M/S.GLOBAL FOODS, MANGAD P.O., KOLLAM - 691 015.

¶9

BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, SECOND CIRCLE, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶12

2 THE SECRETARY KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDL. BENCH, SASTHMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010.

¶13

BY ADV.SMT. M.M JASMINE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C) No.904 of 2022

¶16

¶17

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶18

W.P.(C) No. 904 of 2022

¶19

Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2022

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of the Central

¶22

Sales Tax Act. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order, relating to assessment year 2016-17, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Kollam; who had rejected the same by a common order, which is produced as Ex.P2. Petitioner has preferred a second appeal before the 2^nd respondent, along with an application for stay, which are produced herein as Exts.P3 and P4 respectively. Petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings to be effected even before the petition for stay is considered. Hence, this writ petition.

¶23

Having considered the submissions of the counsel for the

¶24

petitioner as well as the respondents, I am of the opinion that this writ petition itself can be disposed of with a direction.

¶25

W.P.(C) No.904 of 2022

¶26

¶27

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 stay petition, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such a decision is taken, all coercive proceedings shall be kept

¶28

in abeyance.

¶29

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶32

AJM

¶33

W.P.(C) No.904 of 2022

¶34

¶35

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 904/2022

¶36

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶37

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 20162017 (CST) EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), KOLLAM FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT -2016-17 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT - 2016-17

¶38

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS : NIL

¶39

//TRUE COPY//

¶40

PA TO JUDGE

Abhijith Mohan v. the Asst. Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhijith Mohan v. the Asst. Commissioner

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

Dinesh Nair Vs Hdfc Ltd.

Shri.Jacob Pulickal George Vs the Income Tax Officer

Radha.B Vs Authorised Officer

K.R.Ushasree Vs the State Tax Officer

Rasheeda Muhsin Vs Axis Bank Limited

The Professional Couriers Vs Income Tax Officer Tds