Following the judgment reported in Archana Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer (2014 (2) KLT 715), the impugned orders in all the above writ petitions are found to be against the dictum laid down therein. Apposite are the guidelines laid down by a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in UTI Mutual Fund v. I.T. Officer & Others (2012) 345 ITR 71 (Bombay) which, though, laid down in the context of stay applications in Income Tax matters, is equally applicable with respect to the Sales Tax issues arising before the appellate authorities. Those guidelines are extracted below:
“(a). While considering the stay application, the authority concerned will at least briefly set out the case of the assessee.
(b). In cases where the assessed income under the impugned order far exceeds the W.P.C. Nos. 14161, 14828 & 15062 of 2014 -2-
returned income, the authority will consider whether the assessee has made out a case for unconditional stay, if not whether looking to the questions involved in appeal, a part of the amount should be ordered to be deposited for which purpose, some short prima facie reasons could be given by the authority in its order.
(c). In cases where the assessee relies upon financial difficulties, the authority concerned can briefly indicate whether the assessee is financially sound and viable to deposit the amount if the authority wants the assessee to so deposit.
(d). The authority concerned will also examine whether the time to prefer an appeal has expired. Generally, coercive measure may not be adopted during the period provided by the statute to go in appeal. However, if the authority concerned comes to the conclusion that the assessee is likely to defeat the demand, it may take recourse to coercive action for which brief reasons may be indicated in the order.
(e). We clarify that if the authority concerned W.P.C. Nos. 14161, 14828 & 15062 of 2014 -3-
complies with the above parameters while passing orders on the stay application, then the authorities on the administrative side of the Department like respondent No.2 herein need not once again give reasoned order.”
2. For the sole reason of the impugned orders having not disclosed any reasons for directing deposit of a portion of the demand, the said orders are set aside. The appellate authority shall consider the same in accordance with law and in accordance with the dictum in the aforecited decisions, within a period of two months from today, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The recovery proceedings in all the writ petitions be stayed until such orders are passed, which orders shall determine the matter thereafter.
Writ petitions are allowed.
K.Vinod Chandran Judge.
kp/-