9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1186 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRecovery of the demand made pursuant to the assessment orders - demand in respect of years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 - petitioner contends that the aforesaid assessment orders are under challenge in statutory first appeals before the second respondent and if coercive steps are taken to realise the tax in the meanwhile, the petitioner will be put to untold hardship - HELD THAT - In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider Exts.P3, P3A and P3B stay petitions in accordance with law, within a period of one month. Till the third respondent takes decisions on Exts.P3, P3A and P3B, coercive proceedings, if any, initiated against the petitioner will be kept in abeyance.
Issues:
Recovery of demand pursuant to assessment orders for years 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17; Challenge of assessment orders in statutory first appeals; Coercive steps causing hardship to the petitioner; Stay petitions Exts.P3, P3A, and P3B; Disposal of the writ petition directing the third respondent to consider stay petitions within one month; Abeyance of coercive proceedings until decisions on stay petitions. Analysis: The petitioner, operating a business registered under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, raised concerns regarding the recovery of demand following assessment orders for the years 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17. It was argued that ongoing statutory first appeals challenge these assessment orders, and any coercive actions to collect taxes during this period would inflict severe hardships on the petitioner. The court heard arguments from both the petitioner's counsel and the Government Pleader representing the respondents. The judgment directed the third respondent to evaluate the stay petitions Exts.P3, P3A, and P3B within a month, adhering to legal procedures. Until decisions are reached on these stay petitions, any coercive measures initiated against the petitioner were ordered to be suspended. This decision aimed to ensure a fair consideration of the petitioner's requests for stay and prevent undue financial burdens during the appeal process. The court's intervention sought to balance the interests of tax collection with the petitioner's right to challenge the assessment orders through statutory appeals.
|
