Wp(C)/6968/2016 Of M.s. St.thomas Timber Industries v. The Income Tax Officer (Tds)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/5TH PHALGUNA, 1937 WP(C).No. 6968 of 2016 (U) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------------- M.S. ST.THOMAS TIMBER INDUSTRIES, KUNDANOOR, MARADU POST, PIN-682 304, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, THOMAS GEORGE. BY ADVS.SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),KOCHI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, C.R BUILDINGS, I.S PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -682 018 INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, C.R BUILDINGS, I.S PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -682 018 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) III, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) III, IST FLOOR, POORNIMA, 28/243, NEAR MANORAMA JUNCTION, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -682 036 IST FLOOR, POORNIMA, 28/243, NEAR MANORAMA JUNCTION, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -682 036 R1 & R2 BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6968 of 2016 (U) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DTD 11/12/201411/12/2014 P2:-TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT P3:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DTD 21/4/2015 P4:-TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN EXHIBIT P2 APPEAL. 2ND RESPONDENT IN EXHIBIT P2 APPEAL. P5:-TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DTD 5/2/2016 IN EXHIBIT P2 APPEAL. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:----------------------------------------- NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.6968 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24[th] day of February 2016 JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 Assessment order, petitioner preferred Ext.P2appeal before the 2[nd] respondent. Along with the appeal, thepetitioner had also preferred Ext.P4 stay petition. The 2[nd]respondent has now passed Ext.P5 order on the stay petitiondirecting the petitioner to pay amount of Rs.1,73,256/- as acondition for the grant of stay against recovery of the balanceamounts confirmed against the petitioner vide Ext.P1 assessmentorder. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns the saidconditional order of stay, inter alia, on the ground that the 2[nd]respondent had not exercised his discretion validly while passingthe said order. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and alsothe learned Government Pleader for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the caseand submissions made across the bar, I dispose the writ petition withthe following directions:- (i) In Ext.P5 order, the 2[nd] respondentdoes not state reasons as to why the petitionerwas required to deposit the amounts as acondition for the grant of stay. This Court has held in Archana Agencies v CommercialTax Officer - 2014 (2) KLT 715that anauthority considering a stay petition is boundto give reasons even while granting conditionalstay. (ii) Ext.P5 order is quashed and the 2[nd]respondent is directed to reconsider the matterand pass fresh orders in the stay petition,within one month from the date of receipt of acopy of this judgment after hearing thepetitioner. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the caseand submissions made across the bar, I dispose the writ petition withthe following directions:- (i) In Ext.P5 order, the 2[nd] respondentdoes not state reasons as to why the petitionerwas required to deposit the amounts as acondition for the grant of stay. This Court has held in Archana Agencies v CommercialTax Officer - 2014 (2) KLT 715that anauthority considering a stay petition is boundto give reasons even while granting conditionalstay. (ii) Ext.P5 order is quashed and the 2[nd]respondent is directed to reconsider the matterand pass fresh orders in the stay petition,within one month from the date of receipt of acopy of this judgment after hearing thepetitioner. (iii) Recovery steps, if any, initiatedagainst the petitioner shall be kept inabeyance till such time as fresh orders arepassed by the 2[nd] respondent as directedabove and communicated to the petitioner. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE