IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4537 of 2010(N)
1. M/S. SHWAS HOMES (P) LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC),
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),
3. THE INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER,
For Petitioner :SMT.S.K.DEVI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :15/02/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
---------------------------
W.P(C) No. 4537 of 2010-N
----------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved of the condition imposed by the
appellate authority while passing Ext.P5 interim order of stay,
directing the petitioner to satisfy 50% of the liability and furnish
‘security bond’ for the balance amount before the assessing
authority within two weeks, so as to avail the benefit of interim
order of stay during the pendency of the appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Ext.P3 appeal has been preferred challenging the action pursued by
the assessing authority and that there is every chance for the
appellate authority to remand the matter. It is also the case of the
petitioner that, once the compounding application is allowed, there
will be no liability for the petitioner and that if the petitioner is
compelled to satisfy the requirement under Ext.P5, irreparable loss,
injury and hardship will be resulted to the petitioner, which is under
challenge in this Writ Petition.
W.P(C) No. 4537 of 2010-N 2
3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents, with specific reference to the contents of Ext.P5
submits that, it can never be regarded as a ‘mechanical order’ in
view of the detailed discussion of the facts and events. It is also
brought to the notice of this Court that, referring to the
observations made by the appellate authority while passing Ext.P5,
that the dealer had first opted for non compounding on 11.8.2008,
then opted compounding on 7.9.2009 and again opted non
compounding on 25.9.2009 by filing revised return. Detailed
discussion of the facts and figures has also been made in the said
order before imposing the condition directing the petitioner to
satisfy 50% of the liability as aforesaid.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds
that Ext.P5 order passed by the appellate authority does not suffer
from any irregularity; much less any illegality. However, considering
the fact that the amount involved is quite substantial, this Court
finds it fit and proper to modify the condition, whereby the liability
now cast upon the petitioner to remit 50% be reduced to 25%.
5. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit 25% of
the liability and furnish sufficient security bond for the balance
W.P(C) No. 4537 of 2010-N 3
amount before the Assessing authority. However, since the time
originally stipulated by the appellate authority vide Ext.P5 order is
already over, the deposit as above shall be made within a further
period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
//True Copy//
P.A to Judge
ab