Wp(C)/7043/2016 Of M/S.st.marys Wood 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, 1937WP(C).No. 7043 of 2016 (E) ------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S) : -------------------------- M/S.ST.MARYS WOOD INDUSTRIES, KUNDANOOR, MARADU POST- 682 304, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRIX JESSY THOMAS. BY ADVS.SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW RESPONDENT(S) : ---------------------------- 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 682 018. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), KOCHI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, C.R BUILDINGS, I.S PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 018. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) III, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) III, 1ST FLOOR, POORNIMA, 28/243 NEAR MANORAMA JUNCTION, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 036. OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) III, 1ST FLOOR, POORNIMA, 28/243 NEAR MANORAMA JUNCTION, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 036. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Msd. ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : ---------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11-12-2014.DATED 11-12-2014. EXHIBIT P2:TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21-04-2015.DATED 21-04-2015. EXHIBIT 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. EXHIBIT P5:TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DATED 28-01-2016 IN EXHIBIT P2APPEAL.APPEAL. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : ------------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE. Msd. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 7043 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.5,37,144/- 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 case and 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 hasheld in Archana Agencies v CommercialTax Officer - 2014 (2) KLT 715that anauthority considering a stay petition is boundto give reasons even while granting conditionalstay. 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 case and 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 hasheld 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. sm/ Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE