IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 30891 of 2007(C)
1. M/S. JOHNSON ROCKS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
3. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-1,
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
For Petitioner :SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :18/10/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) No. 30891 OF 2007 C
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 18th October, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Against Exts. P5 and P6 orders of assessment for
the years 2001-02 and 2002-03 petitioner filed appeals
as is evident from Exts. P7 and P8. Considering the
application made by the petitioner for stay of recovery
of tax due in terms of the orders of assessment, the
appellate authority has passed Ext. P9 order granting
stay on condition that the petitioner remits 50% of the
tax. This order has not been complied with and that
resulted in Ext. P10 revenue recovery notice, by which,
the entire dues in terms of the orders of assessment
are sought to be recovered. It is challenging the
revenue recovery proceedings as also the conditional
order of stay which has been granted by the appellate
authority that this writ petition has been filed.
2. In so far as Ext. P9 conditional interim order
of stay passed by the appellate authority is concerned,
the petitioner has not complied with the same. Since
the petitioner has not complied with the conditions
W.P.(C) No. 30891 OF 2007 -2-
imposed by the appellate authority in Ext. P9, and
since stay obtained from the appellate authority stands
vacated, the respondents cannot be faulted for the
steps they have taken by Ext. P10 revenue recovery
notice.
3. As far as the condition imposed for requiring
the petitioner to remit 50% of the tax due as per Ext.
P9 is concerned, the contention raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the quantification
of tax is based only on the details of the energy
charges collected by the Electricity Board and that
this has been done despite the labour unrest and
consequential suspension of work, that was prevailing
in the unit.
4. These aspects have already been dealt with in
Exts. P5 and P6 assessment orders. In any case this is
a matter to be gone into by the appellate authority.
Having gone through the order Ext. P9, I am not in a
position to find any perversity in the order passed by
the appellate authority.
5. Therefore, I am not in a position to interfere
with Ext. P10. However, as a last chance I direct
W.P.(C) No. 30891 OF 2007 -3-
that if the petitioner remits the amount ordered in
Ext. P9 within one month from today the petitioner will
be entitled to the benefit of stay and that in the
meanwhile the Revenue Recovery proceedings will be kept
in abeyance.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-