M/S.POWER INDIA ELECTRICALS V. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-1

WP(C)/20698/2018

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Power India Electricals, which challenged an appellate order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The petitioner had previously filed an appeal (Ext.P3) against the appellate order (Ext.P2) but faced delays, prompting them to file an application for condoning the delay (Ext.P5) and a stay application (Ext.P4). The petitioner argued that the delay in deciding the appeal by the Tribunal was causing proceedings for realization of the disputed amounts to be initiated. The High Court's intervention was sought to expedite the Tribunal's decision on these applications.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 742691 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Kerala Value Added Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: V K SHAMSUDEEN
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH NAMBIAR; N R SAJ
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Delay in filing appeal; Realisation of amounts; Stay Application
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 1ST ASHADHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 20698 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) M/S.POWER INDIA ELECTRICALS MUTHAYIL HOUSE, EROOR SOUTH P.O, TRIPPUNITHURA -682306, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADVS.SRI.RAJESH NAMBIAR SRI.N.R.SAJ RESPONDENT(S): 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-1 (WORKS CONTRACT), ERNAKULAM. PIN-682034. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) 1V, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM. PIN-682031. 3. KERALA AGRL. INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ADDL BENCH, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR/SECRETARY, PIN -682031. 4. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM -682038. R BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 20698 of 2018 (J) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 31/01/2014. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11/10/2017. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BEFORE THE 3RED RESPONDENT AGAINST EXT P2 ORDER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY FILED ALONG WITH EXT P3 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION FILED ALONG WITH EXT P3 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 17/6/2014. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14/10/2014 SENT BY THE PETITION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL ---------------------- TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE Scl. P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20698 of 2018 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2018 JUDGMENT Challenging Ext.P2 appellate order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal. Ext.P5 is the application preferred by the petitioner in the appeal for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Ext.P4 is the application for stay preferred by the petitioner in the appeal. It is stated that proceedings have already been initiated for realisation of the amounts covered by the order impugned in the appeal. The grievance of the petitioner, in the circumstances, concerns the delay on the part of the Tribunal in deciding the appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the Tribunal to consider the application preferred by W.P.(C) No.20698 of 2018 -2- the petitioner to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Ordered accordingly. This shall be done within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. If the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and if the petitioner does not produce materials indicating remittance of 30% of the disputed tax in the meanwhile, the Tribunal shall pass orders on the application for stay preferred by the petitioner also, within the aforesaid time limit. On the other hand, if the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and if the petitioner produces materials indicating remittance of 30% of the disputed tax in the meanwhile, the Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal itself, within three months thereafter. Needless to say that till orders are passed on the application for condoning the delay or the application for stay or the appeal, as the case may be, further proceedings for realization of the amounts covered by the order impugned in the appeal shall be deferred by the respondents concerned. Sd/- P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE Scl/22.06.2018 "