2020 (7) TMI 254 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of assessment order - Kerala VAT Act - Revenue Recovery Proceedings - consideration of stay petition - HELD THAT - This Court in W.P.(C) No.3800/2020 had passed a detailed order after having called the Assistant Commissioner of Law in court with regard to the numbering of appeal and hearing of the stay application. Several writ petitions are pending in this Court seeking redressal of grievance for non-hearing of the appeal, along with stay applications - This writ petition is also of the similar nature and the petitioner is in dilemma. In such circumstances, this Court cannot sit as a mute spectator without coming to the rescue of such litigants. This writ petition is disposed off with a direction to the appellate authority to consider the application of stay within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment as the petitioner in such circumstances had not opted for automatic stay in view of the amended provisions of Section 55 (4) of KVAT Act, 2003. Steps for recovery of amounts pertaining to Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance, till such time the stay application is disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to consider stay application before proceeding with revenue recovery under Kerala Value Added Tax Act for the assessment year 2013-14.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed an appeal along with a stay application against an order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act for the assessment year 2013-14. The petitioner alleged that the respondent was moving forward with revenue recovery without addressing the stay petition first, leading to the petitioner seeking relief from the court. The court noted that in a previous case, it had issued a detailed order after summoning the Assistant Commissioner of Law to address issues related to the numbering of appeals and the hearing of stay applications. Numerous similar writ petitions were pending before the court, highlighting the recurring problem of appeals not being heard along with stay applications.

The court emphasized that it could not remain indifferent to the plight of such litigants facing delays and uncertainties in the legal process. Consequently, the court directed the appellate authority to review the stay application within two months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment. The petitioner had not opted for automatic stay due to amended provisions of Section 55(4) of the KVAT Act, 2003. The court ordered that steps for recovering amounts related to a specific matter should be halted until the stay application was resolved, clarifying that this interim measure was temporary until the stay application's decision.

Importantly, the court specified that the temporary stay should not hinder the appellate authority from deciding both the appeal and the stay application concurrently. This directive aimed to ensure a fair and efficient resolution of the legal matters at hand, balancing the interests of the petitioner and the legal process.