The High Court of Kerala dismissed the writ appeal against a judgment upholding the appellate authority's discretionary stay order directing payment of a portion of the tax demand.
Time for payment of tax demand extended till the 30th of the month; otherwise, writ appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
MONDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2010 / 12TH ASWINA 1932
WA.No. 1703 of 2010()
--------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.29813/2010 Dated 28/09/2010
APPELLANT:
M.V.ABRAHAM, J.J.CRUSHERS, KADAPPARA, THIRUVALLA.
BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON
RESPONDENTS:
BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
.................................................................... Writ Appeal No.1703 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 4th day of October, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
Writ Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge wherein the single Judge declined to interfere with discretionary order of stay granted by the appellate authority. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. We find that the demand presently raised is fixed by the officer in remand proceedings based on an earlier appellate order. Even though counsel for the appellant contended on merits of the case, particularly with regard to challenge against rate of tax, we do not think it is proper for us to consider it because if we consider the issues, the appeal before the statutory authority itself will become infructuous. The conditional stay order challenged in this court is only direction to pay 30% of the outstanding amount for one year and 40% for the other year. We do not think we can interfere with the discretionary order of stay granted by the appellate authority without considering the merits
2
of the case, which we cannot consider as already stated. Consequently
Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, time for payment is extended till
30th of this month.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge
K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge
pms
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the discretionary order of stay granted by the appellate authority in tax stay proceedings.
M.V.Abraham, J.J.Crushers, Kadappara
Commercial Tax Officer, Thiruvalla
Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Department of Commercial Taxes, Kollam
C.N.Ramachandran Nair
K.Surendra Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
