TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Orders Timely Decision on Stay Petitions & Condonation Applications</h1> <h3>M.P RAMESH, PROPRIETOR, NEW COCHIN BAKERY Versus STATE TAX OFFICER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), STATE TAX OFFICER (RECOVERY)</h3> The court directed the 2nd respondent to decide on the applications for condonation of delay and stay petitions within three months. The respondents were ... Validity of assessment order - Condonation of delay in filing appeal - recovery of the amount as determined by the assessment year - HELD THAT:- The statutory appeals along with the stay petitions and applications for condonation of delay are pending adjudication before the 2nd respondent and therefore, the petition is disposed of with the directions that the 2nd respondent shall decide the applications for condonation of delay, and then if necessary, the applications for stay, Exts.P5 to P5(b), within a period of three months from the date of communication of this judgment. Writ petition disposed off. Issues:Challenging assessment orders under Kerala Value Added Tax Act for assessment years 2009-2010 and 2011-2012, insistence on recovery during pendency of statutory appeals, applications for condonation of delay and stay petitions pending adjudication.Analysis:The petitioner, an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, challenged assessment orders for the years 2009-2010 and 2011-2012 by filing statutory appeals accompanied by stay petitions and applications for condonation of delay before the 2nd respondent. Despite the pendency of these proceedings, the respondents were pressing for the recovery of the determined amount. The learned Government Pleader opposed the petition, arguing that the amount had already been determined against the petitioner.Upon considering the submissions and reviewing the material presented, the court directed the 2nd respondent to decide on the applications for condonation of delay and stay petitions within three months from the date of the judgment. The petitioner was instructed to cooperate with the 2nd respondent for the expeditious disposal of these applications. Until the decision on the delay condonation and stay petitions, the respondents were ordered to halt any coercive action for the recovery of the determined amount. The petitioner was also required to provide a copy of the judgment to the 2nd respondent for compliance purposes.In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the mentioned directions, emphasizing the need for timely adjudication of the pending applications and the suspension of recovery actions until a decision is made on the stay petitions and delay condonation applications.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
