The Writ Appeal against a judgment upholding a Commissioner of Appeals order granting conditional stay on tax recovery was dismissed. The High Court found no error in the Single Judge resisting the appellant's claim to overturn the stay.
Writ Appeal dismissed; appellant granted 3 more weeks time to pay the amount in terms of the stay order.
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 A.M.SHAFFIQUE &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MAY 2016/13TH VAISAKHA, 1938
WA.No. 892 of 2016
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO.10722/2016, DATED 21-03-2016
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER :
JOY A.L, PROPRIETOR, M/S.THRISSUR ALUKKA FURNITURE, CHEVOOR.P.O,THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.MAHESH V.MENON SRI. GIREESH KUMAR P.A
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER APPEALS, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,THRISSUR.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
A.M.SHAFFIQUE & K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, JJ.
W.A. No.892 of 2016
Dated this the 3rd day of May, 2016
JUDGMENT
A.M.SHAFFIQUE,J
This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 21.3.2016 in W.P. (C).No.10722 of 2016 by which the learned Single Judge of this Court did not interfere with Ext.P5.
any violation of the principles of natural justice and accordingly the learned Single Judge did not interfere with the impugned order.
W.A. No.892 of 2016
2
passed by the Commissioner of Appeals is not a speaking order. Perusal of the order clearly indicates that the Commissioner had with due application of mind, issued an order of stay. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:
I have considered the above contention with reference to the assessment order. There is a penalty imposed by the Intelligence Officer(IB), Kottayam for suppression of turnover. Further the KVATIS data shows unaccounted transactions during the year. Hence the assessment is seen based on the materials available on record. Most of the unaccounted transactions admitted by the appellant as due to inadvertent mistake from the part of staff. There is no proof for attempt to revise the return produced at this stage.
The sustainability or otherwise of the contentions raised by the appellant can be examined in detail only on verification of the connected records at the time of final hearing of the appeal. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant had established a prima facie case for granting conditional stay. Hence the following orders are passed.
that the learned Single Judge had committed any error in rejecting the claim of the appellant. Accordingly, we do not find any ground to interfere
W.A. No.892 of 2016
3
with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant is granted 3 more weeks time to pay the amount in terms of Ext P5 order.
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, JUDGE
pm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Single Judge erred in not interfering with the stay order requiring remittance of 30% tax.
Whether the appeal against the judgment upholding the stay order should be allowed.
Joy A.L
The Commercial Tax Officer
The Assistant Commissioner Appeals
A.M. Shaffique
K. Abraham Mathew
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
