By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 37913 of 2015 (L) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : ----------------------- THE KONGAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.P538, KONGAD.P.O., PALAKKAD-678 631, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SHYLA.K. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, PALAKKAD-678 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), 3RD FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, THRISSUR-680 001. 3RD FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, THRISSUR-680 001. R1 & R2 BY SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).NO.37913/2015 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 DATED 31/03/2015THE YEAR 2012-13 DATED 31/03/2015 P2COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24/04/2015RESPONDENT DATED 24/04/2015 P3COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24/04/2015RESPONDENT DATED 24/04/2015 P4COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26/10/2015. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. =========================================== W.P.(C). No. 37913 of 2015 =====================================================Dated this the 15[th] day of December, 2015 JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order for the assessment year2012-2013 under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner had preferredExt.P2 appeal before the 2[nd] respondent. Along with the appeal,the petitioner had also preferred Ext.P3 stay petition. The 2[nd]respondent has now passed Ext.P4 order directing the petitioner topay 50% of the amount as a condition for the grant of stay againstrecovery of the balance amounts confirmed against the petitionervide the assessment order. 2.In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns the saidconditional orders of stay, inter alia, on the ground that the 2[nd]respondent had not exercised his discretion validly while passingthe said order. 3.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner as also the learned Government Pleader appearing forthe respondents. 4.On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of thecase and the submissions made across the bar, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:- (i)In Ext.P4 order, the 2[nd] respondent does notstate reasons as to why the petitioner wasrequired to deposit the amounts as a condition forthe grant of stay. This Court has held in ArchanaAgenciesv. Commercial Tax Officer[2014(2)KLT 715] that an authority considering a staypetition is bound to give reasons even whilegranting conditional stay. (ii)Ext.P4 order is quashed and the 2[nd]respondent is directed to reconsider the matterand pass fresh orders in the stay petitions filed bythe petitioner, within one month from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this judgment after affordingan opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (iii)Recovery steps, initiated against thepetitioner shall be kept in abeyance till such timeas fresh orders are passed by the 2[nd] respondent,as directed above, and communicated to thepetitioner. Sd/-A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE