M/S. Infinite Motors v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2015/26TH ASHADHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 21566 of 2015 (U) ---------------------------- PETITIONER :
--------------------- M/S. INFINITE MOTORS KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER NIZAR MAKKIYIL, AGED 44 YEARS S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN KUNJU MAKKIYIL HOUSE, PUNNAPPRA P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN 688 004.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR SRI.H.ABDUL LATHIEF RESPONDENT(S) :
---------------------------- 1.
INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, CHENGANNUR, PIN - 689 121.
2.
DY. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 002.
3.
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER - I COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE, KAYAMKULAM ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690 502.
R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn ...2/-
WP(C).No. 21566 of 2015 (U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.32040925997/2012-13 ISSEUD BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED IN APPEAL NO. KVATA (ALPY) 169/2015 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P4 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE CANARA BANK, KAYAMKULAM.
EXT.P5 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE CANARA BANK, KAYAMKULAM TO THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
............................................................. ............................................................. Dated this the 17th day of July, 2015 J U D G M E N T Against Ext.P1 assessment order, petitioner preferred appeal before the 2nd respondent. Along with the appeal, the petitioner had also preferred a stay petition. The 2nd respondent has now passed Ext.P2 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 2nd respondent had not exercised his discretion validly while passing the said order.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 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.P2 order, the 2nd 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 v Commercial 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.P2 order is quashed and the 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders in the stay petition, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after hearing the petitioner.
(iii) Recovery steps, if any, initiated against the petitioner shall be kept in
abeyance till such time as fresh orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns