K.P. Sanalkumar vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 5 June, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 15457 of 2009(B)


1. K.P. SANALKUMAR, K.C. APPLICANCES,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),

3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

4. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.C.JAMES

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :05/06/2009

 O R D E R
                 P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
             ........................................................................
                    W.P.(C) No.15457 OF 2009
             .........................................................................
                       Dated this the 5th June, 2009

                                J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is challenging Ext. P8 order passed by the

second respondent/appellate authority imposing a condition to

pay a portion of the amount assessed as liability during the

pendency of Ext.P3 appeal filed against Exts.P1 and P2

impugned assessment order and erratum order respectively . It

is stated that the reason stated for imposing the condition, as

evident from Ext.P8, is that the petitioner/appellant therein did

not produce ‘conclusive evidence’ for granting unconditional stay.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner was not provided with adequate opportunity to produce

‘conclusive evidence’ as intended by the appellate authority and

hence seeks for one more opportunity to produce all the requisite

evidence for substantiating his case .

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

W.P.(C) No.15457 OF 2009

2

4. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds

it fit and proper to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to

substantiate his case before the appellate authority. In the said

circumstances, Ext. P8 is set aside and the second respondent is

hereby directed to consider Ext.P4 application preferred by the

petitioner afresh on merits, of course, after giving an opportunity

of hearing to the petitioner with liberty to adduce such evidence

as the petitioner wants to adduce. Appropriate orders shall be

passed on the said petition as expeditiously as possible. Till

such orders are passed as above, all coercive steps stated as

being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.

lk