S. Krishna Kumar v. Commercial Tax Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/16TH POUSHA, 19361 WP(C).No. 240 of 2015 (D) -------------------------- /PETITIONER :
---------------------- S. KRISHNAKUMAR PROPRIETOR, GURU TRADERS, KOTTATHARA MANNARKKAD.
BY ADVS.SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN RESPONDENTS :
-------------------------
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MANNARKKAD-678582.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678001.
R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn ...2/-
WP(C).No. 240 of 2015 (D) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :
------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESMENT ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2009-10 DATED 24-10-2014. EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24-11-2014.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24-11-2014.
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20-12-2014.
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FILED BY THE AUDITOR BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT, DATED 28-01-2012.
EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT FILED BY AUDITOR, DATED 05-09-2012.
EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM NO. 12 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 07-11-2014.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
................................................. W.P.(C) No. 240 of 2015 (D) ............................................... Dated this the 6th day of January, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 on the files of the first respondent. Against Ext.P1 Assessment order, petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the second respondent. Along with the appeal, he had also preferred Ext.P3 stay petition. The second respondent has now passed Ext.P4 interim order on the stay petition directing the petitioner to pay 40% of the amount as a condition for the grant of stay against recovery of the balance amounts confirmed against the petitioner vide Ext.P1 assessment order.
2.In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns the said conditional order of stay, inter alia, on the ground that the second respondent had not exercised his discretion validly while passing the said order.
3.Heard Sri.N.Muraleedharan Nair, the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Smt.Sobha Annamma Eappen, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents.
W.P.(C) No. 240 of 2015 (D) 4.On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made across the bar, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:- (i) In Ext.P4 order, the second respondent does not state reasons as to why the petitioner was required to deposit the amounts as a condition for the grant of stay. This Court has held in Archana Agencies vs. Commecial Tax Officer (2014 (2) KLT 715) that an authority considering a stay petition is bound to give reasons even while granting conditional stay.
(ii) Ext.P4 order is quashed and the second respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders in the stay petition filed by the petitioner, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (iii) Recovery steps, initiated against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till such time as fresh orders are passed by the second respondent, as directed above, and communicated to the petitioner.
Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE AMV/07/01/