M/S.ST.MARYS WOOD INDUSTRIES V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)

WP(C)/7043/2016

AI Insights

In this case, M/s. St. Marys Wood Industries, represented by its proprietrix Jessy Thomas, challenged a conditional stay order issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) III. The stay was related to an assessment order from the Income Tax Officer (TDS), which confirmed certain tax dues against the petitioner. The petitioner had appealed the assessment order and filed a stay petition, which was granted conditionally by the 2nd respondent, requiring a payment of Rs.5,37,144 as a condition for the stay. The petitioner contested this condition in the High Court, arguing that the 2nd respondent had not validly exercised discretion in imposing such a condition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699266 (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 Order; Conditional stay; Income Tax; Stay Petition

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAY ASANKARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/5TH PHALGUNA, 1937 WP(C).No. 7043 of 2016 (E) ------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S) : -------------------------- M/S.ST.MARYS WOOD INDUSTRIES, KUNDANOOR, MARADU POST- 682 304, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRIX 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. BY ADV. 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: Msd. WP(C).No. 7043 of 2016 (E) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : ---------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11-12-2014. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21-04-2015. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE STA Y PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN EXHIBIT P2 APPEAL. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE STA Y ORDER DATED 28-01-2016 IN EXHIBIT P2 APPEAL. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : ------------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE. Msd. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 7043 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of February 2016 JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 Assessment order, petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the 2nd respondent. Along with the appeal, the petitioner had also preferred Ext.P4 stay petition. The 2nd respondent has now passed Ext.P5 order on the stay petition directing the petitioner to pay amount of Rs.5,37,144/- as a condition for the grant of stay against recovery of the balance amounts confirmed against the petitioner vide Ext.P1 assessment order. 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.7043 of 2016 : 2 : and submissions made across the bar, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:- (i) In Ext.P5 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.P5 order is quashed and the 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders in the stay petition, 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/ "