Case Law Details
Mathew Scaria Vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Kerala High Court)
Introduction: In the case of Mathew Scaria Vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, the petitioner sought relief through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petition challenged a demand notice (Ext.P4) and the delay in resolving the associated appeal (Ext.P2) and stay application (Ext.P3). The Kerala High Court addressed this matter, emphasizing the need for expedited resolution and a temporary halt in enforcing the demand notice.
Detailed Analysis: The petitioner had filed an appeal (Ext.P2) against an assessment order (Ext.P1) and a stay application (Ext.P3). However, neither the appeal nor the stay application had been processed, leading to the issuance of the demand notice (Ext.P4). The petitioner’s counsel pointed out the timeliness of the appeal and the delay in taking action on the stay application.
Considering the circumstances, the Kerala High Court issued a directive to the 2nd respondent to promptly assess and pass orders on the petitioner’s stay application (Ext.P3) in accordance with the law. This directive carried a timeline of one month, during which the demand notice (Ext.P4) would not be enforced.
Conclusion: The Kerala High Court’s decision to expedite the resolution of the KGST appeal (Ext.P2) and the stay application (Ext.P3) while temporarily halting the enforcement of the demand notice (Ext.P4) is crucial for the petitioner. It ensures that the appeal process is fair and expedited, and the demand notice remains on hold during this period. This ruling underscores the court’s commitment to timely and just resolution of tax-related disputes, providing relief for the petitioner in this case.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
(a) Call for the records of the case leading to Ext.P4 demand notice and quash the same by means of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order.
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal as expeditiously as possible or in any event direct the 2nd respondent to hear and dispose off the Ext.P3 stay application within a short time being specified by this Hon’ble Court.
(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate wit or order forbearing the Respondent 1 and 3 from pursuing any coercive recovery steps against the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P4 demand notice and Ext.P1 assessment orders
(d) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of this case.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay application. However, no decision has been taken on the stay application. Learned counsel also submitted that the appeal is on time. Learned counsel further submitted that pending consideration of the appeal and stay application, Ext.P4 demand notice has been issued.
3. Considering the aforesaid facts, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 stay application of the petitioner in accordance with law, within a period of one month. For a period of one month, Ext.P4 notice shall not be given effect.
4. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands finally disposed of.
