Zero Degree, vs State of Kerala,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 07, 2019

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1878396

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1878396
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu
Decided On: Mar 07, 2019
Case Number: WP(C)/6836/2019

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Zero Degree,

Respondent

State of Kerala,

Excerpt

.....001. 2 the deputy commissioner (appeals), poothole, thrissur-680 004. 3 the state tax officer (investigation branch), poothole, thrissur -680 004. by government pleader dr. thushara james this writ petition (civil) having come up for admission on 07.03.2019, the court on the same day delivered the following:judgmentthe petitioner, a registered dealer under the kerala value added tax act, 2003 ('kvat act') on the rolls of the 3rd respondent, questioned the ext.p1 penalty order, before the 2nd respondent. the petitioner has also filed a stay petition in the appeal. ventilating his grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.2. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned government pleader.3. i reckon the petitioner has exercised on time his statutory remedyof filing an appeal. it appears that he has also filed a stay petition. procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition.4. therefore, i dispose of the writ petition directing the respondentauthority to defer coercive steps until the 2nd respondent considers the stay petition. i also hope that the 2nd respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. sd/- dama seshadri naidu judge ska appendix petitioner's/s exhibits: exhibit p1 a true copy of the order dated 31.01.2019 passed by the 3rd respondent. exhibit p2 a true copy of the appeal dated 02.03.2019 (without annexures) filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. exhibit p3 a true copy of the stay petition dated 02.03.2019 filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. respondent's/s exhibits: //true copy// pa to judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY ,THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1940 PETITIONER: ZERO DEGREE, SHORNUR ROAD, THIRUVAMBADY P.O., THRISSUR-680 022, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR- MR.DANY ANTONY. BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), POOTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 004. 3 THE STATE TAX OFFICER (INVESTIGATION BRANCH), POOTHOLE, THRISSUR -680 004. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER DR. THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('KVAT Act') on the rolls of the 3rd respondent, questioned the Ext.P1 penalty order, before the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has also filed a stay petition in the appeal. Ventilating his grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

3. I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time his statutory remedy

of filing an appeal. It appears that he has also filed a stay petition. Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition.

4. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent

authority to defer coercive steps until the 2nd respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the 2nd respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously. sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE SKA APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2019 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 02.03.2019 (WITHOUT ANNEXURES) FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 02.03.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2019 Same Parties Zero Degree, vs State of Kerala, Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu