Challenging Ext.P4 assessment order for the assessment year 2012-2013, the petitioner preferred Ext.P6 appeal along with Ext.P6(a) stay petition before the 1st respondent who passed Ext.P7 order, whereby the petitioner has been required to satisfy 30% of the disputed liability so as to enjoy the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of appeal, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the assessment was finalized without considering the facts and figures brought on record, particularly with reference to the C- Forms and the eligibility of the petitioner to satisfy tax at the concessional rate of 2%. The point was specifically raised in the appeal as well and the various contentions raised with reference to the factual position and also with reference to the relevant provisions of law have been extracted by the appellate authority as well in Ext.P7. Despite this, without any proper application of W.P.C. No. 27460 of 2014 -2-
mind or discussion, condition has been imposed which is not supported by any reason and hence is liable to be intercepted by this Court.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
4. In the interim order passed by the 1st respondent, the appeal preferred by the petitioner is cited as dated 02.09.2013. So also is the position with regard to the stay petition. The order is dated 23.09.2013. It appears that, there is a typographical error in this regard. That apart, the contention raised by the petitioner that, absolutely no reasons have been stated in the order is of considerable force. By virtue of the nature of contentions taken by the petitioner, it is was much necessary to have adverted to the same, while passing the order. This Court finds support in this regard from the ruling rendered by the Supreme Court in Ravi Gupta v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi & Another (2009) 22 VST 529 and also by this Court in Archana Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer 2014 (2) KLT 715.
5. In the said circumstance, this Court finds that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the 1st respondent. Accordingly, W.P.C. No. 27460 of 2014 -3-
Ext.P7 is set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the application for stay preferred by the petitioner and a speaking order shall be passed after hearing the petitioner which shall be done at the earliest, at any rate, within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance till such time.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps. The writ petition is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
kp/-