AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the condition imposed by the second respondent while passing Exts. P9/P9(a) orders granting interim stay during the pendency of appeal, directing the petitioner to satisfy 30% of the disputed liability so as to avail the benefit of the interim stay.
The case of the petitioner is that, the assessment proceedings were finalized in a hasty manner, without giving sufficient opportunity for producing the relevant documents. On receipt of Exts. P2/P2(a) notices under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act and Rule 6(5) of the CST Rules, the petitioner submitted Exts. P3/P3(a) on 17.07.2014 seeking for some more reasonable time to submit a detailed reply and relevant documents. This however was not acceded to and Exts. P4/P4(a) came to be passed on 30.07.2014, being aggrieved of which, the petitioner approached the second respondent by way of Exts. P5/P5(a) appeals along with P6/P6(a) petitions for stay. Because of the coercive proceedings the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C). No. 22212 of 2014, which was disposed of, directing the concerned respondent to consider and dispose of the I.A. for stay within the time as specified therein. Pursuant to the said verdict, the second respondent considered the stay petition and passed Exts. P9/P9(a) orders imposing the condition as aforesaid, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by way of present writ petition.
Heard the learned Government pleader as well, who submits that, Ext. P3 was never submitted by the petitioner as contended and has submitted only Ext. P3(a). It is also pointed out that, time was granted to the petitioner before passing Exts. P4/P4(a), but no proper reply or relevant documents were produced before the assessing authority. The learned Government Pleader also submits that, several other lapses were also there on the part of the petitioner as discernible from Exts. P4/P4(a) orders.
Said version is sought to be rebutted by the learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that, the assessment proceedings were finalized for want of production of F-Forms and C-Forms. The learned counsel also submits that, in respect of the total turnover of nearly 3.8 crores, petitioner has got F-Forms to an extent of 3.64 crores. It is stated that, the petitioner also procured substantial extent of C-Forms and facts and figures were brought to the notice of the appellate authority/2nd respondent by submitting Exts. P7/P8, well before passing orders on the stay petition. Even though the case projected by the petitioner was referred to in Exts. P9/P9(a), the scope of the contention and the materials produced has not been discussed anywhere and hence the writ petition.
After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that an opportunity could be given to the petitioner to have the case substantiated before the second respondent, in the light of Exts. P7/P8. It is also equally important to note that, absolutely no reason is given by the appellate authority for imposing the condition, while passing Exts. P9/P9(a). In the said circumstance, the said order cannot be termed as a ''speaking order'' in the light of the ruling rendered by the Apex Court in Ravi Gupta Vs. Commissioner Sales Tax, Delhi and Another, and by this Court in Archana Agencies Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, .
Accordingly, Exts. P9/P9(a) are set aside and the second respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass speaking orders, after giving a chance to produce all the relevant documents and also after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The proceedings as above shall be finalized, 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 writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for further steps.