M/S.KAVUNKAL GRANITES, MALAYALAPUZHA V. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PATHANAMTHITTA

WP(C)/27628/2016

AI Insights

The case involves M/S. Kavunkal Granites (P) Ltd., the petitioner, who challenged an order (Ext.P8) requiring them to remit 30% of a demanded amount and furnish security for the balance. This order was part of a penalty imposed for alleged tax evasion, which was double the amount of tax evaded. The petitioner argued that the penalty was unjust and that their objections were not considered. The government, represented by the learned Government Pleader, defended the actions of the tax authorities. The court found that the revisional authority did not adequately consider the factual aspects or the petitioner's contentions when issuing the conditional stay order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 726974 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: C P PRADEEP
• Assessee Lawyers: AJI DEV
• Keywords: Conditional Order; Penalty; Stay Application; Tax Evasion

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2016/9TH BHADRA, 1938 WP(C).No. 27628 of 2016 (C) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- M/S. KAVUNKAL GRANITES (P) LTD., MALAYALAPUZHA-ERAM-P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SABU KURIAKOSE. BY ADV. SRI.AJI V.DEV RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645. 2. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX & COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, RANNY-686 101. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645. BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.P.PRADEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C).No. 27628 of 2016 (C) ----------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPOUNDING APPLICATION DATED 08-05-2015 FOR THE YEAR 2015-16. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05-01-2016. EXHIBIT P2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED AGAINST EXT. P2 DATED 01-02-2016. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED COMPOUNDING APPLICATION DATED 02-02-2016. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PROPOSING PENALTY FOR 2015-16 DATED 11-03-2016. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED AGAINST EXT. P4 DATED 28-03-2016. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IMPOSING PENATLY FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 30-03-2016. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 25-04-2016. EXHIBIT P7(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED FOR 2015-16 DATED 25-04-2016 EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY ORDER GRANTING STAY DATED 28-07-2016. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL ------------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE sts A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.27628 of 2016 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of August 2016 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P8 by which he was called upon to remit 30% of the amount demanded and to furnish security for the balance amount. Though an objection was filed by the petitioner, an order of penalty was issued by the authorities by which the petitioner was imposed with double the amount of tax evaded. 2. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that there is no basis for imposing such penalty. Further, none of the contentions urged by the petitioner has been considered. Though the learned Government Pleader submits that, factually there is no error on the part of the Officer to have directed stay on condition of the petitioner remitting 30% of the penalty imposed, still I do not find any such consideration being made while considering the application for stay. 3. It is trite that when an application for stay is considered and conditional order is passed, the authorities will have to take into consideration the factual aspects involved in the W.P.C.No.27628/2016 2 matter including the respective contentions of the parties and orders are to be passed with due application of mind. Such a consideration of the matter is not reflected in Ext.P8 order. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be allowed. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P8 is set aside and the revisional authority is directed to consider the matter afresh, after taking into consideration the contentions urged by the petitioner. (sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr "