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].
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department.
3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar and also taking note of the decision of this Court cited supra, I find that Ext.P9 order is a laconic one bereft of any reasoning, and hence, cannot be legally sustained. I therefore quash Ext.P9 order, and direct the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders on the stay petition after hearing the petitioners. To enable the 1st respondent to do so, I direct the petitioners to appear before the 1st respondent, at his Office, at 11.00 a.m. on 14.11.2019. The 1st respondent shall pass order in the matter, as directed, within one month thereafter. It is made clear that recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioners by the assessment order, shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 1st respondent, as directed, and the order communicated to the petitioners. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 1st respondent, for further action.
The writ petition is disposed as above
Author Bio
