Wp(C)/11066/2019 Of O.dinesh Kumar v. Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1941 WP(C).No. 11066 of 2019 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 order passed by the 2[nd] respondent. The petitioner filed Ext.P6 stay petitionbefore the 2[nd] respondent. The subject matter of appeal is theassessment year 2015-2016. The 2[nd] respondent allowed theapplication for granting stay. However, subject to the condition ofthe petitioner paying or depositing 20% of the total tax demanded forthe assessment year in question, the petitioner challenges Ext.P7 onthe condition of 20% as onerous and the Ext.P7 order fails to takenote of the grounds urged by the appellant. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring tovarious grounds, raised against the order under appeal tries topersuade this Court that this is a fit case for granting stay withoutimposing any condition. He prays for setting aside Ext.P7 andallowing the Writ Petition. 4.Mr.Abraham, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, sustains the order by contending that the 2[nd]respondent exercised the jurisdiction in the right perspective and noexception can be taken to the condition of directing the petitioner todeposit 20% of the tax demanded for the year 2015-2016. The counselstrongly relies on the reasoning given by the 2[nd] respondent inparagraph 4 of Ext.P7 and prays for dismissing the writ petition. Healternatively contends that the appeal could be directed to bedisposed of expeditiously and the petitioner can be put to somereasonable condition in the place of 20%. 5. Controversy centers round the condition imposed by the 2[nd] respondent in Ext.P7. This Court, prima facie, does not seeillegality in the exercise of discretion warranting judicial review in thepresent writ petition. The circumstances which are stated in the writaffidavit as well as before the 2[nd] respondent however persuade thisCourt to substitute 20% condition imposed by the 2[nd] respondentwith 10% payable within 45 days from today. The petitioner enjoysthe benefit of stay order subject to complying with this condition within the time stipulated by this Court. In default of complying withthe condition without reference to the Court, it shall be presumedthat the stay order is not in operation. Further the 2[nd] respondentconsiders and disposes of the appeal within four months from today.The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. sd. To Judge Sd/-S S.V.BHATTI, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: