By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 22532 of 2018 PETITIONER THE KERALA UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., KERALA UNIVERSITY BUILDING, PALAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033,REPRESENTED BY SAJ.S.V.,SECRETARY. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.2(1), OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE-2, 1ST FLOOR, AYAKAR BHAVAN KAWDIAR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003. FLOOR, AYAKAR BHAVAN KAWDIAR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), AYAKAR BHAVAN,1ST FLOOR,KAWDIAR,THIRUVANTHAPURAM-695 003. 3. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME TAX, AYAKAR BHAVAN,KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURM 695 003. AYAKAR BHAVAN,KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURM 695 003. R BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT:P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 EXT:P2 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT:P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT:P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT:P5 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT:P6 COPY OF THE FIXED DEPOSIT DETAILS OF RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2013-14. AND PAYMENTS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2013-14. css/ DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. =========================================== W.P.(C). No. 22532 of 2018(N) ============================================ Dated this the 6[th] day of July, 2018 JUDGMENT While entertaining the petitioner's appeal, the secondrespondent, exercising its jurisdiction and discretion, granted aninterim stay on the condition of the petitioner's depositing 20% ofthe disputed tax. As is evident from the record, of the two issues inappeal, the First Appellate Authority granted absolute stay on oneand conditional stay on the other. 2. Now in this writ petition, the learned counsel for thepetitioner persistently pleads acute financial difficulties said to havebeen faced by the petitioner. 3. In response, the learned standing counsel for the Income Tax Department has submitted that the First Appellate authority hasconsidered all the issues, prima facie though, involved in the matterand rendered a well considered conditional order, which does not callfor any jurisdictional interference. True, once an authority, either quasi judicial or judicial,exercised its discretion, unless the discretion is perverse or the WPC No.22532/2018 2 authority lacks vires, the constitutional court, especially exercisingequity jurisprudence, will not interfere. Here, I do not see substantial ground to interfere save thefactor of acute financial distress said to have been faced by thepetitioner. Under these circumstances, I slightly modify the interimdirection dated 24.4.2018 holding that the petitioner shall pay 15% ofthe disputed tax instead of 20%. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/-DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE css/