IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16814 of 2010(B)
1. M/S.CHEMMANNUR FASHION JEWELLERS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)-1
3. SALES TAX OFFICER (RECOVERY),
For Petitioner :SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN PURAYIDAM
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :01/06/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON.J
------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).NO.16814 OF 2010
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of June, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved of the action persued by the
respondents; particularly insisting the petitioner to furnish some
other security, inspite of complying the requirement as ordered by
the appellate authority in Ext.P4, by effecting the deposit of
Rs.3,00,000/- and furnishing security bond as borne by Ext.P5.
The petitioner has approached this Court with the following
prayers:
i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ,
order or direction, directing to the 1st
respondent to record compliance of the
conditions of Exhibit P4 order by the petitioner
without insisting for a solvency certificate for
the remaining amount due as per Exhibit P2
demand notice.
ii. Direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of Exhibit
P3 appeal as early as possible within a time
limit fixed by this Hon,ble Court.
W.P.(C).NO.16814 OF 2010 2
iii. Stay the recovery proceedings pursuant to
Ext.P2 demand notice and Exhibit P6 revenue
recovery notice until the disposal of Exhibit P3
appeal.
iv. Issue such other order or direction which this
Hon’ble Court deem fit in the facts and
circumstance of this case.
2. The factual position revealed is that, challenging Ext.P1
assessment order Ext.P5 appeal was filed along with an application
for interim stay. After considering the I.A, the appellate authority
passed Ext.P4 order, whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit
a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on or before 29.3.2010 and to furnish
security to the satisfaction of the assessing authority for the balance,
within one month. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to
Ext.P4 order, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- has already been remitted and
furnished Ext.P5 security Bond. Inspite of the compliance as above,
respondents are proceeding with further coercive steps, which made
the petitioner to approach this Court for appropriate reliefs.
3. Heard learned Government Pleader as well. Materials on
record show that the condition imposed by the appellate authority
vide Ext.P4 has been substantially complied with. The learned
W.P.(C).NO.16814 OF 2010 3
Government Pleader submits that Ext.P5 Bond is not proper and
complete in Form 6, all the necessary particulars having not been
given. There is no case for the petitioner that solvency certificate has
been furnished or the particulars of immovable properties have been
given. This being the position Ext.P5 produced is rather incomplete
and not acceptable.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner might be given some breathing time to furnish the security
in Form.6 / Rule19(2) of the KVAT Rules. Considering the facts and
circumstances, petitioner is granted one month’s time to furnish the
security for the balance amount as ordered by the appellate
authority vide Ext.P4.
4. The second respondent is directed to consider Ext.P3
appeal and pass final orders as expeditiously as possible at any rate
within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,JUDGE.
pm