R By Government Pleader, Sri. Liju v. Stephen

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/26TH BHADRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 28220 of 2015 (R) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- MERCY JOHN AGED 41 YEARSPROPRIETRIX, M/S. MATHA COIR WEBBIING INDUSTRIES CANAL WARD, ALAPPUZHA - BY ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1.THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICERCOLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001 2.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)COMMERCIAL TAXES, BAPPUJI NAGAR, ASRAAMA, KOLLAM - 691 002COMMERCIAL TAXES, BAPPUJI NAGAR, ASRAAMA, KOLLAM - 691 002 3.THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXESALAPPUZHA - 688 001 4.THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENTTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. LIJU V. STEPHEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 28220 of 2015 (R) ----------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- ------------------------------------------ EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 13.02.2015 FOR 2005-06. EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 13.02.2015. EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 30.05.2015 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 30.05.2015 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION DATED 30.05.2015 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPNODENT. EXT.P6TRUE COPY OF THE EARLY HEARING PETITION DATED 30.05.2015 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL DATED 14.12.2009 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7(a)TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 07.12.2010PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN SUO MOTO REVISION DATED 30.06.2014 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P9TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 05.11.2014 IN WP(C) No.28283 OF 2014 (I) EXT.P10TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER IN EXT.P4 DATED 11.08.2015 PASSEDBY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- ----------------------------------------- NIL das // True copy // PA to Judge A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. =========================================== W.P.(C). No. 28220 of 2015 ===================================================== Dated this the 17[th] day of September, 2015 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala Value AddedTax Act, 2003. Against Ext.P1 assessment order for the assessmentyear 2005-2006, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P3appeal beforethe 2[nd] respondent. Along with the appeal, the petitioner had alsopreferred Ext.P4 stay petition and Ext.P5 delay condonationpetition. The 2[nd] respondent has now passed Ext.P10 orderdirecting the petitioner to pay 30% of the amount as a condition forthe grant of stay against recovery of the balance amountsconfirmed against the petitioner vide 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. The petitioner also seeks permission to prefer anappeal against Ext.P8 Revision order on the ground of limitation. 3.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner as also the learned Government Pleader appearing forthe respondents. W.P.(C). No. 28220 of 2015 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. The petitioner also seeks permission to prefer anappeal against Ext.P8 Revision order on the ground of limitation. 3.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner as also the learned Government Pleader appearing forthe respondents. W.P.(C). No. 28220 of 2015 4.On a consideration of the facts and circumstances ofthe case and the submissions made across the bar, I dispose thewrit petition with the following directions:- (i)In Ext.P10 order, the 2[nd] respondent doesnot state 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.P10 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. (iv)The prayer of the petitioner for permissionto file an appeal against Ext.P8 Revision order for W.P.(C). No. 28220 of 2015 raising a plea of limitation is rejected taking note of subsequent events that took place as detailedin the writ petition. Sd/-A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE das