Wp(C)/9511/2012 Of Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2012/24TH CHAITHRA 1934 WP(C).No. 9511 of 2012 (L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., T.C.XI/266, KESTON ROAD, KOWDIAR, TVM-695 003REP. BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER SRI. M.RAJASEKHAR BY ADVS.SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.) SRI.SAJI VARGHESE SMT.MARIAM MATHAI RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TVM 2.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(I),TVM 695 001TVM 695 001 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-04-2012,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX EXHIBITS P1-TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.10 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENTRESPONDENT P2-TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.1.11RESPONDENT DATED 24.1.11 P3-TRUE COPY OF PETITION FOR STAY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1STRESPONDENT DATED 2.11.11RESPONDENT DATED 2.11.11 P4-TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 2.4.12 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT /true copy/ P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).9511/2012 .............................................. Dated this the 13[th] day of April, 2012 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 order of assessment was passed for theassessment year 2008-09. Against the assessmentorder, petitioner filed Ext.P2 appeal. SubsequentlyExt.P3 stay petition was also filed. The stay petitionwas heard pursuant to the directions of this Court inthe judgment in W.P.(C).34812/2011 and Ext.P4 orderhas been passed directing the petitioner to remit 50%of the amount in five equated monthly instalmentscommencing from 15[th] of April, 2012. It ischallenging this order the writ petition is filed. 2.Heard the learned senior counsel appearing forthe petitioner and also the learned Standing Counselappearing for the respondents. 3.Having regard to the contents of Ext.P1assessment order and the contention raised by thepetitioner in Ext.P2 appeal, I am in agreement with the Appellate authority that a strong prima faciecase has been made out by the petitioner. However,I am inclined to think that a direction to remit 50%of the amount due is a condition which is tooonerous and requires to be modified. With this inmind, I direct that the direction requiring thepetitioner to remit 50% of the demand raised ismodified and it is directed that the petitioner shallpay 25% of the demand raised in two equatedmonthly instalments. First instalment shall be paidon or before 25.4.2012 and the second instalmentshall be paid on or before 25.5.2012. On suchpayment, recovery of the balance tax due underExt.P1 will stand stayed and the Appeal will be heardwithout any delay. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE /true copy/ mrcs P.A. To Judge