J U D G M E N T v. Commercial Tax Officer - [2014 (2) Klt 715

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019/18TH ASWINA, 1941 W.P(C).No.26095 OF 2019(J) PETITIONERS: 1SHYLA PUSHPAN,AGED 56 YEARSKILIYANPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELIYANOOR ROAD, KOKKALAI, THRISSUR-680021.AGED 56 YEARSKILIYANPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELIYANOOR ROAD, KOKKALAI, THRISSUR-680021. 3K.P.SHAN,KILIYANPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELIYANOOR ROAD, KOKKALAI, THRISSUR-680021.KILIYANPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELIYANOOR ROAD, KOKKALAI, THRISSUR-680021. BY ADVS.SRI.A.KUMARSRI.P.J.ANILKUMARSMT.G.MINI(1748)SRI.P.S.SREE PRASADSHRI.ABRAHAM JOBSRI.AJAY V.ANAND RESPONDENTS: 1THE COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (APPEALS),AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680001.AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR-680001. 2THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THRISSUR-680001.THRISSUR-680001. 3INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD NO.2(4), THRISSUR-680001.WARD NO.2(4), THRISSUR-680001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FORADMISSION ON 10.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P9 orderpassed by the 1[st] respondent, in a stay application filed along with anappeal against an order of assessment under the Income Tax Act. Thecontention of the petitioner is essentially that, in Ext.P9 order, thereis no mention of any reason as to why the Appellate Authority deemedit necessary for the petitioners to pay 20% of the total demand, as acondition for stay of the balance 80% of the demand arising from theassessment order during the pendency of the appeal. The petitionersrely on the decision of this Court in Archana Agencies v.Commercial Tax Officer - [2014 (2) KLT 715]. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as alsothe learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of thecase as also the submissions made across the bar and also taking noteof the decision of this Court cited supra, I find that Ext.P9 order is a laconic one bereft of any reasoning, and hence, cannot be legallysustained. I therefore quash Ext.P9 order, and direct the 1[st]respondent to pass fresh orders on the stay petition after hearing thepetitioners. To enable the 1[st] respondent to do so, I direct thepetitioners to appear before the 1[st] respondent, at his Office, at 11.00a.m. on 14.11.2019. The 1[st] respondent shall pass order in the matter,as directed, within one month thereafter. It is made clear thatrecovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against thepetitioners by the assessment order, shall be kept in abeyance tillsuch time as orders are passed by the 1[st] respondent, as directed, andthe order communicated to the petitioners. The petitioners shallproduce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of thisjudgment, before the 1[st] respondent, for further action. The writ petition is disposed as above. Sd/-A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE W.P.(C).No.26095/2019 : 4 : APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: W.P.(C).No.26095/2019 : 5 : EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAYFILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED29.01.2019.FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED29.01.2019. EXHIBIT P8 (A)TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAYFILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED29.01.2019.FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED29.01.2019. EXHIBIT P8 (B)TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAYFILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED29.01.2019.FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED29.01.2019. EXHIBIT P9TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED30.08.2019.ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED30.08.2019. W.P.(C).No.26095/2019 : 4 : APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: W.P.(C).No.26095/2019 : 5 : EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAYFILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED29.01.2019.FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED29.01.2019. EXHIBIT P8 (A)TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAYFILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED29.01.2019.FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED29.01.2019. EXHIBIT P8 (B)TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAYFILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED29.01.2019.FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED29.01.2019. EXHIBIT P9TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED30.08.2019.ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED30.08.2019. EXHIBIT P9 (A)TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED TO THE2ND PETITIONER DATED 30.08.2019.2ND PETITIONER DATED 30.08.2019. EXHIBIT P9 (B)TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED TO THE3RD PETITIONER DATED 30.08.2019.3RD PETITIONER DATED 30.08.2019. EXHIBIT P10TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL BY THE BUYEROF THE PROPERTY FOR FIXATION OF FAIRVALUE.OF THE PROPERTY FOR FIXATION OF FAIRVALUE. EXHIBIT P11COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE. EXHIBIT P12TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FILED BY THEBUYER BEFORE SUB REGISTRAR FORCORRECTION OF THE DEED.BUYER BEFORE SUB REGISTRAR FORCORRECTION OF THE DEED. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE