Kavitha Trading Co vs The Assistant Commissionr (Kgst) on 16 January, 2007

0
37
Kerala High Court
Kavitha Trading Co vs The Assistant Commissionr (Kgst) on 16 January, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 1765 of 2007(I)


1. KAVITHA TRADING CO.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR (KGST),
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN

 Dated :16/01/2007

 O R D E R
                              P.R.RAMAN, J.

                        ```````````````````````````

                      W.P.(C) NO. 1765 OF 2007

                        ```````````````````````````

             Dated this the 16th day of January, 2007


                              J U D G M E N T

As against Exhibit P1 assessment order for the assessment

year 2001-02, petitioner preferred appeal and a stay petition.

Exhibit P5 is the order passed in the stay application granting a

stay in favour of the petitioner, on condition to pay 40% of the

balance tax due. Petitioner has produced Exhibit P6 to show that

he has complied with the interim order passed in Exhibit P5.

While the matter was pending in appeal, the assessing officer has

passed an order of rectification as evidenced by Exhibit P8. The

petitioner has challenged the same by filing Exhibit P9 along with

Exhibit P10 stay application. In the meanwhile, demands have

been raised against the petitioner by the assessing officer as

evidenced by Exhibits P11 and P12. As far as Exhibit P12 is

concerned, that is the amount due as per Exhibit P1 in respect of

which the petitioner has already been granted a stay as stated

above. As such the present demand ignoring the stay order

passed by the appellate authority and without taking into

WPC 1765/2007

: 2 :

consideration of the compliance of the order as per Exhibit P6 is

illegal. Since Exhibits P2 and P2(a) demand is already stayed by

the appellate authority and so long as stay continues, a fresh

demand could not have been raised as per Exhibit P12. On this

limited ground, Exhibit P12 will stand quashed and therefore

demand could be raised subject to the order to be passed in the

appeal already pending.

2. As regards the demand Exhibit P11 is concerned it is

based on the rectification order Exhibit P8. Petitioner has

preferred an appeal and the stay application Exhibits P9 and

P10.

3. In the circumstances, there will be a direction that if

the petitioner pays 40% as against Exhibit P11 demand within a

period of three weeks, further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit

P11 will stand stayed until Exhibit P9 appeal is disposed of by the

appellate authority. There will be a further direction that both

the appeals are to be heard together and disposed of.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE

Rp

WPC 1765/2007

: 3 :

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here