2019 (7) TMI 1010 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Compounded rate of tax - cancellation of permission to pay tax at compounded rate by the petitioner u/s 8(f) of the KVAT Act, 2003 - HELD THAT - By referring to Ext.P8 this Court while directing the appeal to be disposed of within time frame ought not to either keep in abeyance or stay Ext.P5 notice issued under Section 25 of the Act. Sri.Tomson T. Emmanuel insists for consideration of his alternate prayer direct the Tribunal to dispose of Ext.P6 appeal on 24.07.2019. The Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kochi/ second respondent considers completing argument on 24.07.2019 or on a shorter date to which the appeal stands posted to and disposes of the appeal not later than 09.08.2019 - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to Ext.P4 order and Ext.P5 notice for regular assessment for 2012-13.
2. Direction to dispose of Ext.P6 appeal within a fixed time frame.
3. Request for time to file reply against Ext.P5 notice.
4. Stay on further proceedings for regular assessment.
5. Consideration of legal remedies and appeal options.
6. Interpretation of Ext.P8 judgment in W.P.(C) No.9815 of 2012.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought relief against the cancellation of permission to pay tax at a compounded rate by the first respondent through Ext.P4 order and the notice for regular assessment for the year 2012-13 issued under Ext.P5. The petitioner filed an appeal (Ext.P6) before the Appellate Tribunal challenging these actions.

2. The petitioner requested the court to direct the Tribunal to dispose of the Ext.P6 appeal within a specific timeframe. The petitioner emphasized the importance of timely disposal and referred to a previous judgment (Ext.P8) to support the argument.

3. Additionally, the petitioner sought time to file a reply against the Ext.P5 notice and requested that all further proceedings for regular assessment be kept in abeyance until the appeal is heard and disposed of.

4. The Government Pleader opposed the prayer for staying proceedings related to Ext.P5, arguing that the order under Section 8 in Ext.P4 is separate from the notice issued under Section 25 in Ext.P5. The Government Pleader highlighted the availability of legal remedies, including the right to appeal, for the petitioner.

5. The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the record. It was noted that the Ext.P8 judgment did not warrant keeping the Ext.P5 notice in abeyance. However, to ensure justice and enable the petitioner to contest the Ext.P5 notice effectively, the court issued directions to the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal to complete the arguments on a specified date and dispose of the appeal by a set deadline.

6. In conclusion, the court's judgment aimed to balance the interests of both parties by providing a clear directive for the disposal of the appeal while allowing the petitioner the opportunity to address the Ext.P5 notice within the legal framework and timeline provided.