Allowed

Muhammed Zakir M.A. v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Kerala HC11 Jan 2016WP(C)/856/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order by the Deputy Commissioner requiring the petitioner to deposit 30% of assessed tax to grant stay against recovery. The court held the authority failed to state reasons as mandated by precedent, directing reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

The conditional stay order is quashed; the authority is directed to pass fresh orders within one month; recovery steps are stayed.

Muhammed Zakir M.A. Vs the Commercial… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/21ST POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 856 of 2016 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MUHAMMED ZAKIR M.A., MUNDAKKAL HOUSE, KARIKODE, THODUPUZHA EAST P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685585.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 1ST CIRCLE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685584.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) -II DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 001.

¶12

3. JOMY K.JOSE, KURAVANTHURUTHU (H), EDAPPALLY, MUTTOM P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 587.

¶13

4. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 508.

¶14

5. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685584.

¶15

6. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 001.

¶16

R1, R2 & R4 TO R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.LILLY.K.T

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

mbr/

¶19

WP(C).No. 856 of 2016 (F)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶22

P1THE TURE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.A-1413/2014-15 DATED 13.2.2015 RELATING TO THE YEAR 2011-2012 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶23

P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATGE OF REGISTRATION IN FORM NO.4 DATED 28.7.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITONER.

¶24

P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF CANCELLATION OF PETITIONER'S REGISTRATION UNDER THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT AS AVAILABE IN KVATIS.

¶25

P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A -1550 DATED 7.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDET TO THE PETITIONER.

¶26

P5THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 19.3.2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

P6THE TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 19.3.2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶28

P7THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.2015/18444/6/400 DATED 28.7.2015 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT 1968.

¶29

P8THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KVATA 210/2015 DATED 30.9.2015 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶30

P9DEMAND NOTICE NO.B2-18444/2015 DATED 21.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE KERALA REVENUE RECOVERY ACT 1968.

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶36

............................................................. W.P.(C).No.856 of 2016

¶37

............................................................. Dated this the 11^th day of January, 2016

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

Against Ext.P1 assessment order, petitioner preferred Ext.P5 appeal before the 2^nd respondent. Along with the appeal, the petitioner had also preferred Ext.P6 stay petition. The 2^nd respondent has now passed Ext.P8 order on the stay petition directing the petitioner to pay 30% of the amount as a condition for the grant of stay against recovery of the balance amounts confirmed against the petitioner vide Ext.P1 assessment order.

¶40

In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns the said conditional order of stay, inter alia, on the ground that the 2^nd respondent had not exercised his discretion validly while passing the said order.

¶41

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶42

-2-

¶43

W.P.(C). No. 856 of 2016

¶44

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made across the bar, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:-

¶45

(i) In Ext.P8 order, the 2^nd respondent does not state reasons as to why the petitioner was required to deposit the amounts as a condition for the grant of stay. This Court has held in Archana

¶46

Agencies v Commercial Tax Officer - 2014 (2) KLT 715 that an authority considering a stay petition is bound to give reasons even while granting conditional stay.

¶47

(ii) Ext.P8 order is quashed and the 2^nd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders in the stay petition, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after hearing the petitioner.

¶48

(iii) Recovery steps, if any, initiated against the petitioner, including steps for freezing the bank account of the petitioner,

¶49

-3-

¶50

W.P.(C). No. 856 of 2016

¶51

shall be kept in abeyance till such time as fresh orders are passed by the 2^nd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner.

¶52

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶53

mns/11.01.16

Muhammed Zakir M.A. v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Zakir M.A. 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

Sadanandan.P Vs Chief Manager

Sri.Ahamed Faizy Vs the Chief Manager

Abdul Majeed Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Venukumar K. Vs State Bank of India

M/S.Neha Leathers Vs State of Kerala

S.Ajithkumar Vs Asst.Commissioner (Assessment)