M/S ARUN AGRO METALS & CO V. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/39658/2016

AI Insights

The case involves M/S Arun Agro Metals & Co, represented by its managing partner Shri K. Mohanasundram, challenging an interim order (Ext.P10) issued by the appellate authority which required the petitioner to remit 1/3rd of a disputed tax amount and provide a bank guarantee for the remaining balance. The dispute pertains to tax assessments for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08. The petitioner argued that the assessment orders imposed no liability as directed, seeking an absolute stay of the order. The court, after considering the merits and the ongoing appeal, decided to modify the order to require a simple bond instead of a bank guarantee for the balance amount while upholding the payment of 1/3rd of the disputed amount.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 738225 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: WPC No.10717 of 2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: V K SHAMSUDHEEN
• Assessee Lawyers: T M SREEDHARAN; V P NARAYANAN; VANDANA MENON; DIVYA RAVINDRAN; ABRAHAM THARAKAN; MERLIN MANSY
• Keywords: Appellate Authority; Bank guarantee; Conditional Order; Stay Petition

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1938 WP(C).No. 39658 of 2016 (F) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- M/S ARUN AGRO METALS & CO 14/100A, MEENACHI NIVAS KAVALAPPARA P.O., SORANUR - 679523.PALAKKAD DISTRICT REPRESENTED ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHRI. K. MOHANASUNDRAM. BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.VANDANA MENON SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN SRI.ABRAHAM VARGHESE THARAKAN SMT.MERLIN MANSY RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAX COMPLEX, PERUMMANOOR, ERNAKULAM COCHIN - 682015 3. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, KAVAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & SALES TAX ADDITIONAL APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PALAKKAD - 678004. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: bp WP(C).No. 39658 of 2016 (F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : P1: COPY OF ORDER NO.3290207174/06-07 DT 13/3/2014 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE DT 14/3/2014 PASSED BY THE R1. P2: COPY OF ORDER NO.32090207174/06-07 DT 13/3/2014 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE DT 13/3/2014 PASSED BY THE R1. P3: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SOUTHERN RAILWAY DT 20/7/2010. P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 9/4/2014 IN WPC NO.10717 OF 2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P5: COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN KAVAT APPEAL KVAT NO.1360/14 TO 1362/2014 FOR AY-2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09 ISSUED BY THE RR2. P6: COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE R3 FOR AY-2006-07. P6(a): COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R3 FOR AY-2006-07. P7: COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE R3 FOR AY-2007-08. P7(a): COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R3 FOR AY-2007-08. P8: COPY OF THE MODIFIED ORDER RESPONDENT FOR AY-2006-07. P9: COPY OF THE MODIFIED ORDER NO.32090207174/2007-08. P10: COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN INTP. NOS. 179/2016 & 180/2016 IN TA.(VAT) NOS.400/2016 & 401/2016 DT 23/11/2016 ISSUED by the R3. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE bp A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J. =============== W.P. (C) No. 39658 of 2016 ================== Dated this, the 14th day of December, 2016 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P10 by which petitioner is called upon to remit 1/3rd of the disputed amount and to provide bank guarantee for the balance. The interim order has been passed in two appeals for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08. Petitioner submits that there is no liability as directed in the assessment orders and therefore the conditional order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled for an absolute stay. 2. Perusal of Ext.P10 order would show that the appellate authority had considered the merits of the contentions urged with due application of mind. In such an event, I do not think that this Court will be justified in interfering with the said order. However, it is submitted that the appeal itself is posted for hearing. In the impugned order, the appellate authority had called upon the petitioner to pay 1/3rd of the amount and to furnish bank guarantee for the balance amount. 3. Taking into account the factual circumstances involved in W.P(C) No.39658/16 -:2:- the matter, I do not think it necessary to call upon the petitioner to provide a bank guarantee for the balance amount. It would suffice that the petitioner gives simple bond for the balance amount. However, there is nothing wrong in the appellate authority having insisted for payment of 1/3rd of the balance demand. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the writ petition is disposed of as under:- Ext.P10 shall stand modified to the extent of directing the petitioner to provide a simple bond instead of bank guarantee. Petitioner shall comply with the directions in Ext.P10 as modified herein within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE Rp14/12/2016 //True Copy// P.S to Judge "