M/S.Hadeed Steels (P) Ltd vs The Assistant Commissioner [Kvat on 28 May, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 16386 of 2010(W)


1. M/S.HADEED STEELS (P) LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER [KVAT],
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.SRIKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :28/05/2010

 O R D E R
                   P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
                      --------------------------------------------
                       WP(C) NO. 16386 OF 2010
                      --------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010

                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of

Ext.P3 interim order passed by the appellate authority, whereby the petitioner

is directed to satisfy 50% of the disputed amount so as to avail the benefit of

interim stay during the pendency of the statutory appeal.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that absolutely no

reason has been given while passing Ext.P3 order and that the condition

made is simply on the basis of ‘two check post detentions’ which by itself

cannot be the sole reason for mulcting this much of liability on the petitioner.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

4. Going by the materials on record, it is revealed that the basic

contention raised by the petitioner has been taking note of while passing the

interim order. It has been observed by the appellate authority that the

addition made by the assessing authority is only by 15% to cover up the

omissions and suppressions and 75% of the same is under Section 6(2) of

the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. It was after referring to the facts and figures

as above, that the appellate authority chose to impose the condition, enabling

the petitioner to have the benefit of stay during the pendency of appeal. This

being the position, it cannot be said that there is no application of mind on

2
WP(C) No. 16386/2010

the part of the appellate authority while passing the interim order. However,

considering the nature of the contentions and the extent of liability, this Court

finds that the extent of the condition imposed is slightly on the higher side and

this Court finds that the interest of justice could be met, if the petitioner is

permitted to have the benefit of interim stay on condition that the petitioner

satisfies ‘1/3’ of the disputed liability, instead of 50% now ordered by the

appellate authority.

5. In the above circumstance, the condition imposed by the

appellate authority vide Ext.P3 is varied and the petitioner is permitted to

have the benefit of interim stay on condition that the petitioner deposits ‘1/3’ of

the disputed liability and furnishes security for the balance amount within two

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Subject to this, the

recovery proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be

kept in abeyance. On satisfying the liability as above, the 2nd respondent is

further directed to consider and pass final orders on Ext.P2 series appeals in

accordance with law after hearing the petitioner as expeditiously as possible,

at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dnc