Not a case of Irreparable Loss when Party can be Compensated in terms of Money: Kerala HC upholds Payment of 30% of Disputed Tax under KVAT Act [Read Order]
![Not a case of Irreparable Loss when Party can be Compensated in terms of Money: Kerala HC upholds Payment of 30% of Disputed Tax under KVAT Act [Read Order] Not a case of Irreparable Loss when Party can be Compensated in terms of Money: Kerala HC upholds Payment of 30% of Disputed Tax under KVAT Act [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Not-case-Irreparable-Loss-Party-Compensated-Money-Kerala-HC-Payment-Disputed-Tax-KVAT-Act-TAXSCAN.jpg)
In a major ruling the Kerala High Court observed that “When a party can be compensated in terms of money, it cannot be a case of suffering irreparable loss” and thereby upheld the payment of 30% of disputed tax under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act).
The petitioner in the present matter is Anand Vijayakumar. The Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has filed statutory appeals under Section 60 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act before the Appellate Tribunal and the said Tribunal was pleased to allow the applications for stay made by the petitioner in the statutory appeals by holding that the petitioner has made out prima facie and arguable case in appeal.
It was further argued that the Tribunal, however, committed an error by holding that the petitioner as appellant is liable to deposit 30% of the disputed demand as condition for grant of stay.
The Government Pleader opposed the writ petition.
A Single Bench of Justice A.M Badar observed that “The appeal is challenging the demand raised by the respondents. Ultimately, the subject matter of appeal is the liability of the petitioner towards monetary dues and one of the conditions which govern the subject matter is whether the petitioner is going to suffer irreparable loss. When a party can be compensated in terms of money, it cannot be a case of suffering irreparable loss.”
By noting that the Tribunal has not committed any error of law in passing the impugned order by balancing the equities, the Court further went on to add that the Tribunal, while deciding the stay petition has observed that, for granting stay to the impugned disputed demand, interest of revenue is required to be considered and, in that premises, it has proceeded to direct the petitioner to deposit 30% of the disputed demand apart from furnishing simple bond for the balance amount.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates