IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17007 of 2009(U)
1. M/S MAC & MEGHA AGRO EQUIPMENTS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),
... Respondent
2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
3. THE TAHSILDAR, ( REVENUE RECOVERY),
For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :25/06/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
........................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 17007 OF 2009
.........................................................................
Dated this the 25th June, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Challenging Exts P1 and P2 assessment orders passed by
the second respondent, the petitioner preferred Exts. P4 and P5
appeals along with petitions for stay and for early hearing, before
the first respondent. After considering the facts and figures, the
appellate authority passed Ext. P6 order granting interim stay on
condition that the petitioner paid 30% of the balance demand
stated as due; simultaneously furnishing a bond, as prescribed,
in respect of the balance amount . The case of the petitioner is
that eventhough 30% of the due amount as ordered vide Ext. P6
has been satisfied and a bond has also been furnished, the
second respondent has rejected the same as not acceptable,
despite the explanation offered in response to Ext.P10 show
cause notice, leading to Ext. P11 order, giving necessary
instructions to the revenue authorities to expedite the recovery
steps.
2. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of
the respondents submits that the bond furnished by the
W.P.(C) No. 17007 OF 2009
2
petitioner was not at all in the proper form, which is evident from
Ext. P9 itself, where even the name of the sureties have not been
mentioned. It is pointed out with specific reference to the
statement filed in this regard that eventhough the petitioner was
given opportunity to cure the defects by returning the bond, it
was simply sent back by the petitioner without curing the same,
under which circumstances, there was no other alternative for
the second respondent but to reject the same and to proceed
with further steps.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
defect in the bond was only due to an inadvertent mistake and
that the bond was returned under the bonafide impression that
all the relevant mistakes stood cured. It is further pointed out
that the petitioner was ready and willing to comply with the
directions given vide Ext. P6, so as to avail the benefit of stay
and that the attitude and understanding of the petitioner can
never be regarded as recalcitrant in any manner.
4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that it will
only be fit and proper to have the appeal finalised by the first
W.P.(C) No. 17007 OF 2009
3
respondent, also enabling the petitioner to avail the benefit of
interim stay, on condition that the petitioner cures the defect
within a further period of ten days to the satisfaction of the
second respondent. If proper bond, as contemplated under the
relevant provisions of Act, is furnished as above, it will be treated
as filed within time, under which circumstances, Ext. P11
proceedings issued by the second respondent will not be of any
consequences. On such an event, the first respondent shall
consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P4 and P5 appeals,
in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within
a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the
judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed as above.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk