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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/12TH KARTHIKA, 1938 WP(C).No. 35271 of 2016 (H) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- M/S.POPULAR PRINTERS, POPULAR TOWERS, VAKAYAR P.O, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER PRABHA THOMAS. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AARATTUKULAKKARA COMPLEX, AN PURAM, ALAPPUZHA -688 011 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), 3RD FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 003 R1 & R2 BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-11-2016,ALONG WITH WPC.NO.35297/2016 AND WPC.NO.35299/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C).No. 35271 of 2016 (H) -------------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14, DATED 17/05/2016. YEAR 2013-14, DATED 17/05/2016. EXHIBIT P1A) COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15, DATED 23/05/2016. 2014-15, DATED 23/05/2016. EXHIBIT P1(B) COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16, DATED 31/05/2016. 2015-16, DATED 31/05/2016. EXHIBIT P1(C) COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17, DATED 12/08/2016. 2016-17, DATED 12/08/2016. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER, DATED 07/09/2016PETITIONER, DATED 07/09/2016 EXHIBIT P2(A) COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER, DATED 19/10/2016. PETITIONER, DATED 19/10/2016. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 31/10/2016.RESPONDENT, DATED 31/10/2016. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------------- NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.Nos.35271, 35297 &35299 of 2016 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3[rd] day of November 2016 J U D G M E N T Petitioners have approached this Court seeking for sometime to obtain a stay against the orders passed by which thepetitioners are mulcted with huge liability for not producing Form15G/15H. Petitioners are now directed to remit the outstandingamount in instalments at the rate of Rs.10,00,000/-,Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.25,00,000/- per week. Orders have beenissued on 07/09/2016. Petitioners could remit only Rs.60,00,000/-in W.P.C.No.35299 of 2016. 2.The only request made by the petitioners is that thepetitioners got an appellate right to challenge the impugnedorders by which liability has been fastened on the petitioners.Pending that appeal, if recovery steps are taken, the petitionerswill be put to serious hardship. Petitioners only seeks ten days'time to prefer appeals. 3.Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for therespondent authorities who contend that sufficient opportunity W.P.C.No.35271/2016 had already been granted to the petitioners by permittingpayment of the amount by way of instalment and there is noreason why the recovery proceedings should be kept in abeyance,if there is non-compliance of the said directions. But, havingregard to the fact that the impugned order is appealable,necessarily an opportunity should be granted to the petitioners toprefer appeal. Learned Counsel submits that if the appellateauthority allows the appeals, there will not be any liability to pay. Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, these writpetitions are disposed of as under: 3.Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for therespondent authorities who contend that sufficient opportunity W.P.C.No.35271/2016 had already been granted to the petitioners by permittingpayment of the amount by way of instalment and there is noreason why the recovery proceedings should be kept in abeyance,if there is non-compliance of the said directions. But, havingregard to the fact that the impugned order is appealable,necessarily an opportunity should be granted to the petitioners toprefer appeal. Learned Counsel submits that if the appellateauthority allows the appeals, there will not be any liability to pay. Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, these writpetitions are disposed of as under: Recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 series in all thesecases are kept in abeyance for a period of ten days to enable thepetitioners to prefer separate appeals and get appropriate ordersfrom the appellate authority. (sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr