2021 (11) TMI 166

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etitioner had preferred appeals before the statutory appellate authority. The appellate authority modified the assessment orders as evidenced by Exts.P5 and P6. Ext.P5 relates to the assessment year 2015-16 while Ext.P6 relates to the assessment years 2014-15, 2016-17 and 2017-18. 2. Aggrieved by the first Appellate Authority's orders, the writ petitioner preferred a second appeal before the Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam, as evident from Ext.P7 series. The stay petition filed along with the appeals were considered and orders were passed granting stay on condition of deposit of 20% of the demand. Petitioner is challenging the orders granting conditional stay on the ground that the same are not spe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....30 days. Stay granted on condition as above. Execute bond for balance amount." 7. A perusal of the above order shows that the same is passed on consent. Since Ext.P10 order relating to the appeal filed against assessment years 2014-15 is passed on consent, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the same. The consent as endorsed in the order impugned, deprives the petitioner the basis for challenging such an order. Hence challenge against Ext.P10 fails. 8. However, the challenge against Exts.P10(a), P10(b) and P10(c) stands on a different footing since the orders therein are different from that extracted above. The order passed by the Tribunal while granting stay for the assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... matters of taxation, the same cannot be understated and also that the duty to give reasons is only conducive to fairness. Yet again, the learned single Judge of this Court in the decision in WP(C) No.26095 of 2019 in Shyla Pushpan's case (supra) had, in an identical case where condition to pay 20% of the demand was imposed for grant of stay was challenged, the same was set aside and fresh consideration was directed due to absence of reasons. 12. The impugned orders in Exts.P10(a), P10(b) and P10(c) stands on the same footing as in Shyla Pushpan's case since reasons have not been stated for imposing the condition of payment of 20% of the total amount. I am therefore of the opinion that the said three orders are liable to be set asi....