9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 268 - HC - GSTGrant of conditional stay - Held that - In the present case only notice has been issued. The learned Government Pleader submits that when a notice is issued, then there is a commencement of recovery proceedings. We would not deal with that issue as of now, since it gives a separate cause of action to the assessee. We direct the assessee to pay the short fall which has been suffered by the Department that is 2,95,000/- to the Department directly within a period of three weeks from today. The Revenue Recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance then. The recovery shall stand stayed until the disposal of the first appeal on such conditions being satisfied - Appeal allowed.
Issues:
1. Conditional stay granted by the First Appellate Authority. 2. Jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 regarding conditions prescribed in the statute. 3. Assessment of the assessee's status as a habitual defaulter. 4. Dispute over deduction of collection charges by Revenue Recovery authorities. Issue 1: Conditional Stay by First Appellate Authority The High Court considered a case where the First Appellate Authority granted a conditional stay requiring the appellant to pay 15% of the outstanding demand and provide sufficient security for the remaining amount. The appellant complied with the 15% deposit but sought permission to furnish a simple bond without sureties. The Court acknowledged the statutory nature of the condition imposed by the Appellate Authorities but asserted its discretion under Article 226, stating that it is not bound by statutory prescriptions. The Court opined that the authorities under the statute were obligated to set conditions as per statutory provisions, prompting the assessee to approach the Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 The Court deliberated on its jurisdiction under Article 226 in contrast to the conditions prescribed by the statute for Appellate Authorities. It emphasized that while the statutory conditions are binding on the authorities, the Court has the liberty to exercise discretion independently. The Court clarified that the assessee resorted to Article 226 due to the limitations posed by statutory provisions, highlighting the unique role of the Court in such matters. Issue 3: Assessment of Assessee's Status The Court examined the status of the assessee, a registered dealer in Kerala, and directed the Senior Government Pleader to ascertain if the assessee was a habitual defaulter. The Pleader confirmed that there were no outstanding amounts for past demands at the time. This assessment played a role in determining the course of action regarding the payment and security obligations of the assessee. Issue 4: Dispute Over Collection Charges A dispute arose concerning the deduction of collection charges by Revenue Recovery authorities. The appellant argued against the deduction, citing precedents where such deductions were deemed impermissible without formal proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The Government Pleader contended that issuing a notice initiated recovery proceedings. The Court refrained from conclusively addressing this issue, instructing the assessee to pay the shortfall directly to the Department and furnish a bond, thereby staying the recovery proceedings until the first appeal's resolution. The Court explicitly stated that it did not definitively rule on the entitlement to collection charges for either party. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the Writ Appeal with specified conditions, emphasizing the Court's discretionary powers under Article 226 and the distinct roles of statutory authorities and judicial bodies in determining stay conditions and recovery proceedings.
|
