Wa/1755/2011 Of M/S.gasha Steels Pvt.ltd v. The Asst.commissioner Of Income Tax,Kzd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1933 WA.No. 1755 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.27850/2011 Dated 24/10/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN W.P.C --------------------------------- M/S GASHA STEELS PVT.LTD,23/2087, PANNIYANKARA,CALICUT,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,K.ABDUL GAFOOR. BY ADV. SRI.K.SRIKUMAR SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C) ------------------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRLCE 1(1),KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 001. MR.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ. ....................................................................W.A. No.1755 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 18th day of November, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and also learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2.The appellant challenged conditional stay ordersissued by the Assessing Officer withholding recovery on partpayment of tax during the pendency of the first appeals beforethe appellate authority. The income tax assessments involvedare for the years 2005-06 & 2006-07. The assessments arebased on data gathered by the Central Excise duringinspection of the factory. Admittedly, substantial portion ofunaccounted production and sale got assessed for the purposeof excise duty and the same is partly confirmed in firstappeals. The appellant's case is that second appeals againstthe central excise demands are pending before the CEGAT andthe appellant is expecting relief from CEGAT and consequently in the income tax appeals as well. Even though the appellanthas a case that the income tax appeals are heard, learnedStanding Counsel submitted that the appellate authority'soffice is vacant and only urgent matters are heard by anotherperson on additional charge. Learned Standing Counsel alsoopposed the Writ Appeal on the ground that demand raised bythe Assessing Officer during pendency of the appeals is only25% of the total demand and balance 75% of the demand isvirtually stayed by him. 3.After hearing both sides, we feel in view of the totalpayments made by the appellant and the balance demand andthe nature of contentions, the conditional stay orders issuedby the Assessing Officer could be modified by reducing theamount and by extending the stay till disposal of the appeals. We, accordingly, dispose of the Writ Appeal by modifyingthe judgment of the learned Single Judge and that of theAssessing Officer by reducing the payment to Rs.40 lakhswhich will be paid in four equal monthly installments, first of W.A.No.1755/2011 which will be paid on or before 15/12/2011 and the balanceon or before 15[th] of the 3 succeeding months. Recoveryproceedings will remain stayed till disposal of the appeals bythe CIT (Appeals) on condition of payment as above. In casethere is default in payment of any of the installments, staygranted by the Assessing Officer and modified by us will standvacated, and the respondents will be free to recover fullarrears. We feel the appellate authority should show priorityfor hearing in matters of high demand and should dispose ofthe appeals without any delay. There will be a direction to theappellate authority to dispose of the appeals within sixmonths from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.This Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jg