High Court of KeralaWP(C)/581/2015disposed of

Sri.Ubaidulla v. The Commercial Tax Officer

2015-01-08Honourable Dr. Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/18TH POUSHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 581 of 2015 (W) -------------------------- PETITIONER :

----------------- SRI.UBAIDULLA, AGED 26 YEARS, J.M.P TRADERS, PARAKUNNAM, PALAKKAD.

BY ADVS.SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMUSUDHEEN RESPONDENTS :

----------------------

1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, CHITTUR PALAKKAD-678104.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION \ ON 08-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 581 of 2015 (W) -------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT-P1:

TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2009-10 DATED 16.10.2014. EXHIBIT-P2:

TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01.12.2014.

EXHIBIT-P3:

TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01.12.2014.

EXHIBIT-P4:

TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.12.2014.

EXHIBIT-P5:

TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM NO.12 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 29.10.2014.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

--------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE bp

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

................................................. W.P.(C) No. 581 of 2015 (W) ............................................... Dated this the 8th 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 30% 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 has 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.

4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made across the bar, I dispose the writ petition

W.P.(C) No. 581 of 2015 (W) 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/08/01/