Petitioner challenged an interim stay order in commercial tax appeal requiring a 30% deposit. Court found no jurisdictional error or natural justice violation. Writ petition dismissed; petitioner given 4 days for compliance.
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.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/25TH POUSHA, 1937
WP(C).No. 1552 of 2016 (T)
PETITIONER :
------------------
C.K.RAJAN, AGED 51 YEARS, CHEMBARA HOUSE, GOLD JEWELLERY, POOCHUNNIPADAM, P.O.URAKAM, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENTS :
----------------------
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAX COMPLEX, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR - 680 004.
2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR - 680 001.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.T. LILLY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
WP(C).No. 1552 of 2016 (T)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
bp
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
W.P.(C) No.1552 of 2016
JUDGMENT
The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P4 conditional order of stay, passed in relation to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent, in an appeal preferred against an assessment order for the assessment year 2013-14. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is essentially that, while passing Ext.P4 order, the 2nd respondent did not exercise his discretion validly.
W.P.(c).No.1552 of 2016 : 2 :
any interference in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition in its challenge against Ext.P4 order therefore fails, and is accordingly dismissed.
Counsel for the petitioner would submit that he would require some time to comply with the directions in Ext.P4 order. Taking into account the plea of financial hardship urged on behalf of the petitioner, I direct that if the petitioner complies with the directions in Ext.P4 order on or before 31.01.2016, then it shall be treated as in compliance of Ext.P4 order and the 2nd respondent shall thereafter proceed to pass orders in the appeal.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
sm/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the interim stay order imposed a 30% deposit condition constitutes a jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice warranting interference under Article 226.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C.K.Rajan
The Commercial Tax Officer, 2nd Circle, Trissur
The Asst. Commissioner (Appeals), Department of Commercial Taxes, Trissur
A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
