PERIYAR ASSOCIATES, REPRESENTED ITS MANAGING PARTNER, T K IBRAHIMKUTTY Vs. STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GOODS & SERVICE TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner impugns the action for recovery initiated by the competent authorities, subsequent to orders of penalty made against them, copies of which have been appended to this writ petition as Ext.P1 series. According to the petitioner, against the orders of penalty, they have already approached the 2nd respondent - Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) by preferring Ext.P2 series of appeals. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though their appeals and the applications for stay, copies of which have been produced as Ext.P3 series, are pending before the Appellate Authority, steps have been taken for recovery of the assessed tax from them through Ext.P4 series of demand notices. The petitioner prays that the recovery against them be interdicted at least until such time as the stay petitions are considered by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that, it is true that the petitioner has preferred appeals before the Appellate Authority, but he says that since the amount involved is substantial, no order of stay may be granted, except on terms.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader.