ACCURARCH ACRYLIC PRIVATE LIMITED V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/6244/2016

AI Insights

The case involves Accurarch Acrylic Private Limited, the petitioner, who contested an assessment order under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The petitioner appealed against the assessment order and filed a stay petition, which was partially granted by the 2nd respondent, requiring monthly payments as a condition for the stay. The petitioner challenged this conditional stay in the High Court, arguing that the 2nd respondent did not validly exercise discretion in imposing such conditions. The court found that the 2nd respondent failed to provide adequate reasons for the conditional stay and did not consider the petitioner's submissions and documents, leading to the quashing of the order and a directive for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 758794 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Archana Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer [2014(2) KLT 715]
• Laws Referred To: Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAMESH JOHN; JOJO NEYYARAPALLY
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Conditional stay; Stay Petition; Recovery of balance amounts
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY , THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/6TH PHALGUNA, 1937 WP(C).No. 6244 of 2016 (E) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ACCURARCH ACRYLIC PRIVA TE LIMITED, PLOT NO. 32, KINFRA SMALL INDUSTRIAL PARK, NALUKETTU ROAD, KINFRA PARK P.O., KORATTY-680 309, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR. S. PRASANNAN. BY ADVS.SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN, SRI.JOJO ISAAC NEYYARAPALLY. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ARATTUKULAKKARA COMPLEX, OPP. GENERAL HOSPITAL, A.N. PURAM, ALAPPUZHA-688 011. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOTTAY AM, 1ST FLOOR, KOTTA YAM PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SASTHRI ROAD, KOTTA YAM-686 001. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. WP(C).No. 6244 of 2016 (E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD. 27/03/2015. EXT.P2: THE TRUE COPY OF FORM OF APPEAL, STATEMENT OF FACTS AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED ON 27/07/2015 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: THE TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR STAY FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 27/07/2015. EXT.P4: THE TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL WITHOUT ANNEXURES. EXT.P5: THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 16/10/2015 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P6: THE TRUE COPY OF LETTER DTD. 28/11/2015. EXT.P7: THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE LOCAL DELIVERY BOOK IN RESPECT OF EXT.P6. EXT.P8: THE TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN REPRESENTATION ALONG WITH COPIES OF BALANCE SHEET, LEDGER AND BANK STATEMENTS. EXT.P9: THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER DTD. 28/01/2016 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DISMISSING THE STA Y PETITION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. =========================================== W.P.(C). No. 6244 of 2016 ===================================================== Dated this the 25th day of February, 2016 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an assessee under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Against Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the 2nd respondent. Along with the appeal, the petitioner had also preferred Ext.P3 stay petition. The 2nd respondent has now passed Ext.P9 order directing the petitioner to pay the demand in installments of Rs.2 lakh per month commencing from the month of January 2016, till the disposal of the appeal, as a condition for the grant of stay against recovery of the balance amounts confirmed against the petitioner vide the assessment order. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns the said conditional orders of stay, inter alia, on the ground that the 2nd respondent had not exercised his discretion validly while passing the said order. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. -2- W.P.(C). No. 6244 of 2016 4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:- (i) In Ext.P9 order, the 2nd respondent does not state reasons as to why the petitioner was required to deposit the amounts as a condition for the grant of stay. This Court has held in Archana Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer [2014(2) KLT 715] that an authority considering a stay petition is bound to give reasons even while granting conditional stay. (ii) In particular, it is seen from Ext.P9 order that, although Ext.P8 written representation was preferred by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent, in Ext.P9 order that was passed, there is no discussion with regard to the documents produced along with Ext.P8 and further no reasons given as to why the explanation of the petitioner was not found acceptable to the 2nd respondent appellate authority. (iii) Ext.P9 order is quashed and the 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders in the stay petitions filed by -3- W.P.(C). No. 6244 of 2016 the petitioner, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (iv) Recovery steps, initiated against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till such time as fresh orders are passed by the 2nd respondent, as directed above, and communicated to the petitioner. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE das /25.02.2016 "