J U D G M E N T v. Heard The Learned Standing Counsel Appearing For Therespondents As Well

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2016/30TH VAISAKHA, 1938WP(C).No. 17762 of 2016 (U) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S) : --------------------------- M/S.ST.THOMAS TIMBER INDUSTRIES, KUNDANNOOR, MARADU POST - 682304, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,THOMAS GEORGE. BY ADVS.SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW RESPONDENT(S) : ----------------------------- BY ADV. SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 17762 of 2016 (U) ------------------------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11/12/2014.DATED 11/12/2014. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21/04/2015.DATED 21/04/2015. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN EXHIBIT-P2 APPEAL.BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN EXHIBIT-P2 APPEAL. P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24/02/2016 IN W.P(C).NO.6968/2016.W.P(C).NO.6968/2016. P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DATED 12/04/2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE. A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.============= W.P. (C) No. 17762 of 2016=================== Dated this, the 20[th] day of May, 2016 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P6, an order passed by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in a stay petition withreference to an appeal filed against orders passed for assessmentyear 2010-11. Petitioner submits that as against the judgment ofthis Court in WP(C) No. 14431/2014 (Excel Timbers PrivateLimited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax), appealsare heard by a Division Bench of this Court and are reserved fororders. In the meantime, when the petitioner has substantialcontentions to be urged in the appeal, the authority had calledupon the petitioner to remit the entire amount demanded. It iscontended that when substantial contentions are urged in theappeal, the direction to pay entire amount is too harsh. 2.Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for therespondents as well. 3.A perusal of Ext.P6 would clearly indicate that theappellate authority had considered the stay petition on merits. As law stands today, the judgment in Excel Timbers PrivateLimited (supra) holds the field. Under such circumstances, I donot find any error in the order passed by the appellate authoritydirecting the petitioner to remit the amount demanded. Theauthority had further granted time to pay the amount in fourequal monthly instalments of `1,06,478/- each month, startingfrom May 2016. 4.Taking into consideration the fact that the appealagainst Excel Timbers Private Limited (supra) is reserved forjudgment by the Division Bench, I am of the view that someindulgence can be shown to the petitioner to remit the amountand accordingly, Ext.P6 is modified as under. 5.That the payment of `4,25,913/- shall be made in fourequal monthly instalments of `1,06,478/- each month, startingfrom 20/6/2016. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Rp20/05/2016 Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE //True Copy// P.S to Judge