By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menon Smt.meera V.menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/1ST POUSHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 39034 of 2015 (D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M/S. ESAF SHG FEDERATION, 2ND FLOOR, HEPHZIBH COMPLEX, MANNUTHY POST, THRISSUR - 680 651, REPRESENTED BY AMBIKA SOMAN, MANAGER. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ST NAGAR, THRISSUR - 680 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 16. ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 16. BY ADV.SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: msv/ ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: -------------------------------------- EXT.P1: COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.EXT.P3: COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:----------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE Msv/ A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. =========================================== W.P.(C). No. 39034 of 2015 ===================================================== Dated this the 22[nd] 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