High Court of KeralaWP(C)/16226/2015disposed of

M/S.A.B.Hatcheries v. The Commercial Tax Officer, Palakkad

2015-06-02Honourable Mr. Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2015/12TH JYAISHTA, 1937 WP(C).No. 16226 of 2015 (C) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

--------------- M/S.A.B.HATCHERIES, L.G PALAYAM, EDUPPUKULAM POST, PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS MAANGING PARTNER, SRI.SUKUMARAN.R BY ADVS.SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, IIIRD CIRCLE, PALAKKAD-678 001

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD 678 001 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SHOBHA ANNAMMA EAPEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 16226 of 2015 (C) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-2011 DATED 10-10-2014 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09-02-2015 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09-02-2015 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 07-05-2015 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO 13646 OF 2015 DATED 08-05-2015 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM NO.12 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 10-10-2014 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P. A. TO JUDGE Pn

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

-------------------------------------------- W.P. (C). No. 16226 of 2015 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2015

J U D G M E N T

This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed in the stay application filed along with the appeal. The appellate authority imposed a condition of 30% for granting stay and also directed the petitioner to furnish adequate security. The petitioner submits that, the order is not a reasoned order and without following the directions in this Court in Archana Agencies V. Commercial Tax Officer [2014 (2) KLT 715].

Though the petitioner's case has been adverted to by the appellate authority, the authority has not stated reasons for imposing conditions. In order to avoid any multiplicity of proceedings further in this matter, I am of the view that the petitioner shall deposit `2.5 lakhs as a condition for stay. Accordingly, the interim order is modified to the above extent. The above amount shall be paid in three equal monthly installments starting from 15.06.2015 and furnish adequate security for the balance amount. All the recovery proceedings shall be deferred to, to work out the above direction.

Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.