Case Law Details
Shyla Pushpan Vs CIT (Kerala High Court)
The contention of the petitioner is essentially that, in Ext.P9 order, there is no mention of any reason as to why the Appellate Authority i.e. CIT (A) in this case, deemed it necessary for the petitioners to pay 20% of the total demand, as a condition for stay of the balance 80% of the demand arising from the assessment order during the pendency of the appeal. The petitioners rely on the decision of this Court in Archana Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer – [2014 (2) KLT 715].
High Court state that the order was a laconic one bereft of any reasoning, and hence, could not be legally sustained. Order was quashed and Revenue was directed to pass fresh orders on the stay petition after hearing the petitioners. Revenue should pass order in the matter, as directed and that recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against assessee should be kept in abeyance till such time as orders were passed.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P9 order passed by the 1st respondent, in a stay application filed along with an appeal against an order of assessment under the Income Tax Act. The contention of the petitioner is essentially that, in Ext.P9 order, there is no mention of any reason as to why the Appellate Authority deemed it necessary for the petitioners to pay 20% of the total demand, as a condition for stay of the balance 80% of the demand arising from the assessment order during the pendency of the appeal. The petitioners rely on the decision of this Court in Archana Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer – [2014 (2) KLT 715].
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
