Wp(C)/8830/2015 Of Marykutty R. Arouge v. Agricultrual Income Tax & Commercial Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/28TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 8830 of 2015 (C) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MARYKUTTY R. AROUGE, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O. RAJAN AROUGE, ARASARKADAVIL H.O., AVALOOKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS.SMT.A.A.SHIBI SMT.KEERTHI SOLOMON RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. AGRICULTRUAL INCOME TAX & COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOLLAM-691 001. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 4. SIBI GEORGE, S/O. GEORGE, AGED 52 YEARS, THOTTUNAKAL, SOUTH ARYAD, AVALOORKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 006. AVALOORKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 006. 5. ROYMON JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 40 YEARS, KAREEPURATH MUHAMMA, PIN-688 012. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SOBHA ANNAMMA EAPEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: mbr/ WP(C).No. 8830 of 2015 (C) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------- P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 26.1.2012. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ITR FORM SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ITR FORM SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.A1-451/2012-13 DATED 10.9.2014.DATED 10.9.2014. P5 :TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.0601-740-017 DATED 1.10.2013. P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER WITH REGARD TO THE COMPOUNDING OF OFFENCE AS NOCR12/12 -13 DATED 19.9.2013.OFFENCE AS NOCR12/12 -13 DATED 19.9.2013. P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.12.2014.DATED 15.12.2014. P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER NO.KVTA(ALPY)653/14 DATED 25.2.2015. P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA, DATED 15.1.2015.ALAPPUZHA, DATED 15.1.2015. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: --------------------------------------- NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. .............................................................W.P.(C).No.8830 of 2015 .............................................................Dated this the 19[th] day of March, 2015 J U D G M E N T Against Ext.P4 assessment order, petitioner preferred Ext.P7appeal before the 2[nd] respondent. Along with the appeal, thepetitioner had also preferred stay petition. The 2[nd] respondent hasnow passed Ext.P8 order on the stay petition directing thepetitioner to pay 30% of the amount as a condition for the grant ofstay against recovery of the balance amounts confirmed against thepetitioner vide Ext.P4 assessment order. 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 thelearned 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 petitionwith the following directions:- (i) In Ext.P8 order, the 2[nd]respondent does not state reasons as to why the petitioner was required to deposit theamounts as a condition for the grant of stay.This Court has held in Archana Agenciesv Commercial Tax Officer - 2014 (2)KLT 715that an authority considering astay petition is bound to give reasons evenwhile granting conditional stay. (ii) Ext.P8 order is quashed and the2[nd] respondent is directed to reconsider thematter and pass fresh orders in the staypetition, within one month from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this judgment afterhearing the petitioner. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the caseand submissions made across the bar, I dispose the writ petitionwith the following directions:- (i) In Ext.P8 order, the 2[nd]respondent does not state reasons as to why the petitioner was required to deposit theamounts as a condition for the grant of stay.This Court has held in Archana Agenciesv Commercial Tax Officer - 2014 (2)KLT 715that an authority considering astay petition is bound to give reasons evenwhile granting conditional stay. (ii) Ext.P8 order is quashed and the2[nd] respondent is directed to reconsider thematter and pass fresh orders in the staypetition, within one month from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this judgment afterhearing the petitioner. (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. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE