By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menonsmt.k.krishna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU FRIDAY ,THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1940 WP(C).No. 37945 of 2018 PETITIONER/S: M/S.SHALOM CHARITABLE MINISTRIES OF INDIASHALOM RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC SCHOOL, SHALOM NAGAR, GOPALAPURAM ROAD, CHITTUR P.O., PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, K.T.THOMAS. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.MEERA V.MENONSMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENT/S: OTHER PRESENT: SC SRI. JOSE JOSEPH., CK. KARUNAKARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T For the assessment year 2010-11 under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner suffered the Ext.P1 adverse assessment order. Afterfiling the Ext.P2 statutory appeal along with the Ext.P3 stay petition,it filed W.P.(C) No.6931 of 2018 and secured a direction from thisCourt that the appellate authority should consider the petitioner'sstay petition expeditiously. 2.Now, the petitioner has once again come before thisCourt assailing the order the appellate authority passed in theExt.P3 stay petition. The petitioner's counsel contends thatimposition of 20% of the disputed tax as pre-condition is onerous. 3.In response, the Standing Counsel for the Departmentsubmits that by complying with the judgment in W.P.(C) No.6931 of2018, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) issued four noticesto the petitioner. But no representative on its part turned up before W.P.(C) No. 37945/2018 the appellate authority. Then, with no other material on record, theappellate authority passed the Ext.P4 order. According to theStanding Counsel, it is well considered as the pre-deposit is confinedto only 20%, despite the petitioner's failing to appear before theauthority and supplying any attenuating circumstances, for theauthority to take a different view. 4.Under these circumstances, I hold that this Court cannot,for mere asking, interfere with the orders passed by the statutoryauthorities, especially, exercising their discretion legitimately. I, therefore, dismiss the writ petition. Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE jjj PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 APPENDIX COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11. COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE2ND RESPONDENT. COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.