JOSE PAUL Vs. STATE TAX OFFICER, FORMERLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a registered dealer under KVAT Act. He filed monthly returns for the assessment years 2011-2012. Later, the first respondent assessed the escaped turnover under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. Then, for various reasons, the petitioner suffered Ext.P1 order, which he appealed against and invited Ext.P3 order from the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Eventually, he has filed Ext.P4 second appeal before the VAT Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, the third respondent.

(2.) In fact, the third respondent entertained the petitioner's stay petition and stayed further proceedings on the condition of the petitioner's depositing 30% and providing security for the balance, as seen from Ext.P7.

(3.) Now, the petitioner contends that though he complied with the Ext.P7, the respondents have continued with their coercive steps and have, in fact, appropriated the entire amount lying in his account with the sixth respondent bank, the garnishee. The petitioner also complains that the authorities have frozen his account, disabling him from carrying on his business activities.