M/S. Kairali Steels & Alloys PVT. LTD. vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax - Kerala High Court, 15 May 2018

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MAY 2018 / 25TH VAISAKHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 15981 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) M/S. KAIRALI STEELS & ALLOYS PVT. LTD., KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, K. ABDUL GAFOOR. BY ADVS.SRI.K.SRIKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN SRI.S.A.MANSOOR (PATTANAM) RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, SPECIAL CIRCLE, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD 678 001. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADERSMT.THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-05-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15981 of 2018 (W) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXT.P1; TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 13/11/2017. EXT.P2; TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 06/12/2017. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE SAID PETITION DATED 16/12/2017. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.I.A.NO.79/2018 IN KVATA NO.483/2017 DATED 07/04/2018. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ................................................................... W.P.(C).No.15981 Of 2018 ..................................................................... Dated this the 15th day of May, 2018

J U D G M E N T Against Ext.P1 assessment order, petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the 2nd respondent. Along with the appeal, the petitioner had also preferred Ext.P3 stay petition. The 2nd respondent has now passed Ext.P4 order on the stay petition directing the petitioner to pay 20% of the tax and interest as a condition for the grant of stay against recovery of the balance amounts confirmed against the petitioner vide Ext.P1 assessment order.

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

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

W.P.(C).No.15981 Of 2018 2 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:- (i) In Ext.P4 order, the 2nd 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 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. (ii) Accordingly, I quash Ext.P4 order and direct the 2nd respondent to pass fresh orders on the stay application preferred by the petitioner, after hearing the petitioner. To enable the 2nd respondent to do so, I direct the petitioner to appear before the 2nd respondent at this office at 11 am on 30.05.2018, the 2nd respondent shall pass fresh orders as directed within a month thereafter.

W.P.(C).No.15981 Of 2018 3 (iii) Recovery steps, if any, initiated against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till such time as fresh orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

JUDGE mns/15.05.18