M/S.ST ALPHONSA TIMBER V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)

WP(C)/7083/2016

AI Insights

In this writ petition, M/s. St. Alphonsa Timber & Traders Private Limited challenged the conditional stay order issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) III, which required the petitioner to deposit Rs.31,84,508 as a condition for staying the recovery of amounts confirmed against them in previous assessment orders. The petitioner argued that the Commissioner did not validly exercise discretion in imposing this condition. The High Court agreed with the petitioner, noting the lack of reasoning in the Commissioner's order, and quashed the order, directing a re-evaluation of the stay petitions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699703 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Archana Agencies v Commercial Tax Officer
• Laws Referred To: Archana Agencies v Commercial Tax Officer - 2014 (2) KLT 715
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K M V PANDALAI
• Assessee Lawyers: O NAMBIAR; GEEN MATHEW
• Keywords: Assessment orders; Conditional stay; Income Tax; Stay petitions

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/5TH PHALGUNA, 1937 WP(C).No. 7083 of 2016 (I) --------------------------- PETITIONER : ---------------------- M/S. ST. ALPHONSA TIMBER & TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED., KUNDANOOR, MARADU POST-682 304, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JESSY THOMAS. BY ADVS.SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOCHI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, C.R.BUILDINGS, I.S PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 018. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) III, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) III, 1ST FLOOR, POORNIMA, 28/243, NEAR MANORAMA JUNCTION, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 036. R1 & R2 BY SRI.K.M.V.P ANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C).No. 7083 of 2016 (I) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 25.11.2014. P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 25.11.2014. P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 25.11.2014. P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 25.11.2014. P5 : COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 25.11.2014. P6 : COPY OF THE APPEAL IN EXHIBIT P1. P6(A) : COPY OF THE APPEAL IN EXHIBIT P2. P6(B) : COPY OF THE APPEAL IN EXHIBIT P3. P6(C) : COPY OF THE APPEAL IN EXHIBIT P4. P6(D) : COPY OF THE APPEAL IN EXHIBIT P5. P7 : COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 21.4.2015. P8 : COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 21.4.2015. P9 : COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 21.4.2015. P10 : COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD.21.4.2015. P11 : COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 21.4.2015. P12 : COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN EXHIBITS P6 APPEAL. P12(A): COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN EXT.P6 (A) APPEAL. P12(B): COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN EXT.P6 (B) APPEAL. P12(C) : COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN EXT.P6 (C) APPEAL. P12(D) : COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN EXT.P6 (D) APPEAL. P13 : COPY OF THE COMBINED STAY ORDER DTD. 5.2.2016 ISSUESD BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ sts P.A.TO JUDGE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.7083 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of February 2016 JUDGMENT Against Exts.P1 to P5 Assessment orders, petitioner preferred Ext.P6 series of appeals before the 2nd respondent. Along with the appeal, the petitioner had also preferred Ext.P12 series of stay petitions. The 2nd respondent has now passed Ext.P13 order on the stay petitions directing the petitioner to pay amount of Rs.31,84,508/- as a condition for the grant of stay against recovery of the balance amounts confirmed against the petitioner vide Exts.P1 to P5 assessment orders. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns the said conditional order 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 for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case W.P.(c).No.7083 of 2016 : 2 : and submissions made across the bar, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:- (i) In Ext.P13 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) Ext.P13 order is quashed and the 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders in the stay petitions, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after hearing the petitioner. (iii) Recovery steps, if any, 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 sm/ "