The High Court modified the stay condition imposed by the Income Tax Appellate Authority. It reduced the deposit from 40% to 30% and allowed installment payments, while rejecting the petitioner's request to deposit immovable property.
stay of order procurement expeditious disposal and Appellate. Section 144 of Code of Civil Procedure.
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 S.V.BHATTI
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1941
WP(C).No.8969 of 2019
PETITIONER/S:
ABDUL JABBAR, AGED 66 YEARS
S/O.ABDULKHADER, DOOR NO.22/306, KOLLIYIL HOUSE, PAY BAZAR, ERIYAD, THRISSUR-680660.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), 3RD FLOOR, AAYKARA BHAVAN, THRISSUR-680001.
2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), RANGE 2, THRISSUR-680001.
BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.8969 of 2019
-2-
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.P.B.Sahasranaman, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jose Joseph, the learned Standing Counsel.
WP(C).No.8969 of 2019
-3-
depositing 40% imposed through Ext.P4 order. He prays for dismissing the writ petition.
facie this Court is of the view that the request of the petitioner to furnish immovable property in compliance with the depositing 40% is untenable and therefore cannot be considered much less a direction could be issued to respondents to receive immovable property security towards compliance with 40% condition imposed in the conditional stay order. The other objection that the 40% condition is also onerous is not fully correct. The appellate authority to the extent required, as it appears from Ext.P4 examined the case and exercised of the discretion. In normal circumstances this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 may not interdict the orders passed by exercising discretion and power of the authority, unless the admissible legal grounds are made out in this behalf. However, in the case on hand, no special reason is assigned for 40% deposit and instead of 20% of demand which is a norm mostly looked at pending appeal. Though this Court shall not be understood as substituting its discretion for the power already exercised in the 1st respondent, to meet the ends of justice and in the circumstances of
WP(C).No.8969 of 2019
-4-
this case condition of 40% imposed by Ext.P4 is modified as 30%, first instalment payable on or before 15.07.2019 and 2nd instalment payable on or before 15.08.2019. Subject to complying with the condition the petitioner is entitled to enjoy the stay of order under appeal before 1st respondent. The petitioner if commits default of any instalment, it is made clear without reference to court the stay granted by this order and Ext.P4 shall stand vacated.
Sd/-
S.V.BHATTI
JUDGE
Ac
WP(C).No.8969 of 2019
-5-
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE NOTICE OF DEMAND, DATED 23.09.2017.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 12.10.2017.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 12.10.2017.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE STAY PETITION IN ITA141/17-18, DATED 27.02.2019.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY// Sd/PA TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the discretion of the tax authority in imposing a 40% deposit condition for stay between the appellate authority and the higher court.
Whether the petitioner's request to furnish immovable property security instead of monetary deposit can be accommodated under Article 226.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ABDUL JABBAR
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), THRISSUR
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), THRISSUR
S.V.BHATTI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
