Classic Hundai Muttil vs State Tax Officer (Ib) State Goods And Service Taxes And Ors

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P3 stay order passed by the 3rd respondents Tribunal in a stay application filed along with

an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the 1st appellate authority confirming a penalty on the petitioner. On a perusal of Ext.P3

order, I find that the Tribunal while acknowledging that the petitioner had made out a prima facie arguable case in the appeal, and finding that if the

recovery proceedings were continued against the petitioner it would cause irreparable loss and hardship to the petitioner, nevertheless directed the

petitioner to deposit 30% of the disputed demand and furnish a simple bond for the balance amount as a condition for stay of the recovery of the

balance amounts confirmed against the petitioner. In my view, Ext.P3 order of the Tribunal does not contain any reason as to why, despite that the

petitioner having made out prima facie case justifying a complete stay, it was required to deposit 30% of the disputed demand as a condition for the

grant of stay of recovery of the balance amount. This Court has held in Archana Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer - 2014 (2) KLT 715 that an

authority considering a stay petition is bound to give reasons even while granting conditional stay and in the instant case I do not see that exercise

having been done while passing Ext.P3 order.

I therefore quash Ext.P3 order and direct the 3rd respondent Tribunal to pass fresh orders on the stay application, taking note of the principles laid

down in the decision of this Court referred above. The 3rd respondent Tribunal shall pass fresh orders as directed within a month from today. The

petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 3rd respondent, for further action.