IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Ziyad Rahman A. A, J
M/S.KANGAPADAN RESIDENCY – Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TAX PAYER DIVISION – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the assessment order under kgst act aggrieved the petitioner. (Para 1) |
| 2. court mandated a stay on recovery proceedings. (Para 2) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, is an assessee under the provisions of the KGST Act and is aggrieved by Ext.P1 assessment order passed under Section 17(3) of the KGST Act , 1963 pertaining to the assessment year 2022-2023. As against Ext.P1, the petitioner has filed Ext.P6 appeal along with Ext.P7 application for stay. The grievance of the petitioner is that the recovery proceedings are being initiated against the petitioner in respect of the impugned assessment order.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that, since the petitioner has invoked the statutory remedy, this writ petition can be disposed of, keeping the recovery proceedings in abeyance until the stay petition submitted by the petitioner is disposed of.
Accordingly, it is ordered that, the 2nd respondent shall take up Ext.P7 stay petition and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed in accordance with law, after giving the petitioner an opportunity for being heard, within a period of three months from the dat
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.