Partly allowed

Girijabai R v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Kerala HC20 May 2015WA/1343/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed an appellate order imposing a deposit condition without reasons. It directed the appellant to furnish security per KVAT rules within four weeks. Recovery proceedings for the disputed amount are stayed pending the disposal of the underlying appeal within eight weeks of security furnishing.

What did the court decide?

Deprimer quashed; Appellant to furnish security within four weeks; Recovery stays; Appellate authority to dispose appeal within eight weeks.

Girijabai R Vs the Commercial Tax Officer — Banking and Recovery | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2015/30TH VAISAKHA, 1937

¶5

WA.No. 1343 of 2013 () IN WP(C).21208/2013

¶6

JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21208/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 27-08-2013

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER :

¶8

GIRIJA BAI. R

¶9

SRI VASAVIL INDUSTRIES, CHINNAPILLAI STREET, MELAMURI PALAKKAD.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH

¶11

RESPONDENTS :

¶12

THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE, FIRST CIRCLE, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶14

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. LIJU STEPHEN

¶15

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-05-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

smv

¶17

ANTONY DOMINIC & SHAJI P. CHALY, JJ.

¶18

W.A. No.1343 of 2013

¶19

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 20^th of May, 2015

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Antony Dominic,J.

¶22

The appellant filed the writ petition challenging Ext.P10, a conditional order of stay passed by the second respondent requiring her to deposit 25% of the impugned demand and furnish security for the balance. By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge modified the order by requiring the appellant to deposit 20% of the amount demanded and to furnish security for the balance. It is this judgment which is under challenge.

¶23

We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶24

Ext.P10 is the order impugned by the appellant. It is by this order a condition was imposed by the appellate authority requiring the appellant to deposit a part of amount demanded in the Ext.P6 assessment order. In Archana Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer [2014(2) KLT 715], this Court has

¶25

W.A. No.1343 of 2013

¶26

¶27

indicated the requirement of the appellate authority assigning reasons in support of his conclusions in orders such as Ext.P10. Reading of Ext.P10 order shows that the appellate authority has not given any reason for the direction requiring the appellant to deposit 25% of the amount demanded. For that reason, we cannot sustain Ext.P10 order and accordingly Ext.P10 order is quashed.

¶28

Ext.P10 order was passed in a stay petition along with Ext.P7 appeal filed before the second respondent as early as in August 2013. It is also a fact that since then by virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court no recovery proceedings have been initiated against the appellant. Considering the long pendency of Ext.P7 appeal filed by the appellant, we dispose of this writ appeal with the following directions:

¶29

That Ext.P10 will stand quashed.

¶30

The appellant shall furnish security for the amount demanded in Ext.P6 assessment order in accordance with the KVAT Rules. This shall be done

¶31

W.A. No.1343 of 2013

¶32

¶33

within four weeks from today.

¶34

Subject to compliance with the above, the appellate authority shall dispose of Ext.P7 appeal with notice to the appellant, at any rate, within eight weeks from the date of furnishing security.

¶35

In the meanwhile, recovery of the amount due under Ext.P6 assessment order for the year 2011-12 will stand stayed.

¶36

Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

//true copy// P.A. to Judge

¶42

smv

Girijabai R v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girijabai R v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs P Sreekala

P.P.Jose Vs the State of Kerala

Canara Bank Vs M/S.Salih Industrial Enterprises Pvt.Ltd.