This writ appeal against an order requiring 15% tax deposit for stay was dismissed. The court held no compelling reason existed to interfere with the modified stay order, rejecting the appellant's claim for an absolute stay without deposit.
Appeal dismissed; time for compliance of the modified Ext.P7 order extended by three weeks.
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 ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/23RD JYAISHTA, 1938
WA.No. 1125 of 2016 () IN WP(C).17776/2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17776/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 20-05-2016
APPELLANT(S)PETITIONER:
C.V.PRASAD CHAKKALAKKAL, CHITTOOR ROAD, VADUTHALA , KOCHI.
BY ADVS.SRI.AJI V.DEV SRI.SUSHANTH.J.
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
R BY SR GOVT PLEADER SMT.SOBHA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.
W.A.No.1125 of 2016 ----------------------------------Dated this the 13th day of June, 2016
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J.
WA.1125/16
2
learned single Judge also erred in requiring the appellant to deposit 15% of the amount due.
4.As is evident from the impugned orders and the judgment under appeal, the appellate authority and the learned single Judge were satisfied that the appellant had made out a prima facie case for an order of stay. On satisfaction of such a prima facie case, in exercise of the discretionary power, an order was passed by the first appellate authority, which was modified by the learned single Judge. In such a case, unless there are compelling reasons, the appellate court will not be justified in interfering with the orders. Having considered the case in hand, we are not satisfied that any such circumstance has been made out by the appellant. We do not find any reason interfere with the matter. Appeal fails and is therefore dismissed.
However, at the request of the counsel for the appellant, we extend the time for compliance of
WA.1125/16
3
Ext.P7 order, as modified by the judgment under appeal, by three weeks from today.
Sd/ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.
Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, Judge.
kkb.
/TRUE COPY/
PS TO JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court was justified in refusing to interfere with the lower court's order to remit 15% of disputed tax before granting stay.
Whether compelling circumstances existed to allow an absolute stay against security.
Whether the condition of depositing a percentage of tax before stay could be waived.
C.V.PRASAD CHAKKALAKKAL
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER WORKS CONTACT
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES
THE INSPECTING ASST: COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES
ANTONY DOMINIC
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
