Case Law Details
Anand Vijayakumar Vs State Tax Officer-1 (WC) (Kerala High Court)
In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court has addressed the issue of delayed payment of disputed tax under the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act. The court’s decision, dated March 3, 2021, involves considerations of stay orders, deposit requirements, and the interests of both the petitioner and the revenue authorities.
1. Background of the Case: This case centers on Anand Vijayakumar’s challenge to a disputed tax demand under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The petitioner filed statutory appeals with the Appellate Tribunal, seeking relief from the demand.
2. Tribunal’s Decision on Stay: The Appellate Tribunal granted the petitioner’s applications for stay, recognizing a prima facie and arguable case in the appeals. However, a crucial condition for granting the stay was that the petitioner should deposit 30% of the disputed demand. This condition led to a legal dispute.
3. Petitioner’s Argument: The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Tribunal erred in imposing the requirement to deposit 30% of the disputed demand as a condition for stay. Reference was made to a previous judgment of the Kerala High Court (W.P.(C) No. 27395 of 2019), highlighting the absence of reasons in the impugned order for imposing this condition.
4. Government Pleader’s Opposition: The Government Pleader representing the revenue authorities opposed the petitioner’s writ petition, presenting counterarguments against the petitioner’s claims.
5. Analysis of Impugned Order: The court examined the impugned order, emphasizing that it was an interlocutory order that granted stay with the condition of depositing 30% of the disputed demand. The central issue in the appeal concerned the petitioner’s liability for monetary dues. The court noted that when monetary compensation is possible, it cannot be considered a case of suffering irreparable loss.
6. Tribunal’s Reasoning: The Appellate Tribunal, while deciding the stay petition, reasoned that the interest of revenue should be considered in granting stay for the disputed demand. As a result, it directed the petitioner to deposit 30% of the disputed demand while furnishing a simple bond for the remaining amount.
7. Court’s Decision: The Kerala High Court concluded that the Appellate Tribunal had not committed any legal error in passing the impugned order. It determined that the Tribunal had balanced the equities, considering the interests of both parties. Consequently, the court found no grounds for interference in writ jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition.
8. Conclusion: The Kerala High Court’s decision in the case of Anand Vijayakumar vs. State Tax Officer-1 revolves around the issue of delayed payment of disputed tax under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act. The judgment underscores the significance of balancing the interests of the petitioner and the revenue authorities when granting stay orders for disputed demands. In this instance, the court upheld the Tribunal’s decision to impose a deposit requirement as part of the stay conditions, emphasizing the need to consider the interest of revenue.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
Dated this the 3rd day of March 2021
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at sufficient length of time. She argued that the petitioner has filed statutory appeals under Section 60 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act before the Appellate Tribunal and the said Tribunal was pleased to allow the applications for stay made by the petitioner in the statutory appeals by holding that the petitioner has made out prima facie and arguable case in appeal. It is further argued that the learned Tribunal, however, committed an error by holding that the petitioner as appellant is liable to deposit 30% of the disputed demand as condition for grant of stay. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.27395 of 2019 decided on 15.10.2019. It is argued that the impugned order granting stay is bereft of reasons for directing the petitioner to deposit 30% of the disputed demand.
2. Learned Government Pleader opposed the writ petition.
3. I have considered the submissions so advanced and perused the impugned order. The impugned order is an interlocutory order granting stay to the petitioner on condition that the petitioner should deposit 30% of the disputed demand. The appeal is challenging the demand raised by the respondents. Ultimately, the subject matter of appeal is the liability of the petitioner towards monetary dues and one of the conditions which govern the subject matter is whether the petitioner is going to suffer irreparable loss. When a party can be compensated in terms of money, it cannot be a case of suffering irreparable loss.
Be that as it may, the learned Tribunal, while deciding the stay petition has observed that, for granting stay to the impugned disputed demand, interest of revenue is required to be considered and in that premises, it has proceeded to direct the petitioner to deposit 30% of the disputed demand apart from furnishing simple bond for the balance amount. To my mind, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error of law in passing the impugned order by balancing the equities. No case for interference in writ jurisdiction is made out.
This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
