M/s. KAIRALI STEELS & ALLOYS PVT. LTD. Versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, PALAKKAD AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD
GST
2018 (5) TMI 1330 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI
KERALA HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 15-5-2018
W. P. (C). No. 15981 Of 2018
GST
A. K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
For The PETITIONER : SRI.K.SRIKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN SRI.S.A.MANSOOR (PATTANAM)
For The RESPONDENT : SMT. THUSHARA JAMES
JUDGMENT
Against Ext.P1 assessment order, petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the 2nd respondent. Along with the appeal, the petitioner had also preferred Ext.P3 stay petition. The 2nd respondent has now passed Ext.P4
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
nt does not state reasons as to why the petitioner was required to deposit the amounts as a condition for the grant of stay. 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.
(ii) Accordingly, I quash Ext.P4 order and direct the 2nd respondent to pass fresh orders on the stay application preferred by the petitioner, after hearing the petitioner. To enable the 2nd respondent to do so, I direct the petitioner to appear before the 2nd respondent at this office at 11 am on 30.05.2018, the 2nd respondent shall pass fresh orders as directed within a month thereafter.
(iii) Recovery steps, if any, initi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =