IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28098 of 2009(F)
1. A.ABDHULL JABBAR, A.J.TRADERS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 3RD CIRCLE,
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)
3. T.S.SALUDHEEN, SASEELA MANZIL,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.UNNIKRISHNA MENON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :07/10/2009
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.28098 OF 2009
------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
———————-
1. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6 order
issued by the 2nd respondent while disposing of an interlocutory
application for stay filed along with Ext.P2 appeal. The
petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent aggrieved by
Ext.P1 order of assessment, wherein a total tax liability of about
Rs.9,50,000/- was imposed. After considering various contentions
raised by the appellant and after affording opportunity of
hearing, the appellate authority had issued Ext.P6 interim order.
Stay of collection of the disputed tax was granted on condition of
the petitioner remitting an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.
2. Contention of the petitioner is that the appellate
authority having been observed that the petitioner had
established a prima facie case, was erred in imposing such a
condition for granting stay. On a perusal of Ext.P6 it is noticed
that the appellate authority had elaborately adverted to the
contentions raised in the appeal and such contentions were
considered with proper application of mind. Having been
convinced that there is a prima facie case which has to be looked
W.P.(C).28098/09-F 2
into in detail while disposing of the appeal, interim stay was
granted with a condition for payment of a meagre sum when
compared with the entire tax liability. I do not think that the
impugned order suffers from any impropriety, irregularity or
infirmity. There is proper application of mind and proper
advertence to the contentions. The condition for stay imposed in
the order is absolutely one coming within the discretion of the
appellate authority and no interference of this court is warranted
with respect to exercise of such discretion. Hence the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.
3. The petitioner had raised a further prayer for
direction to the 1st respondent to give copies of the invoices
alleged to have been suppressed, which is subject matter of
Ext.P1 assessment. It is for the petitioner to approach the 1st
respondent with a proper request for obtaining copies of such
invoices and if such request is made the 1st respondent will issue
copies of the required invoices facilitating the petitioner to
contest the appeal in a proper manner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further requested
that the time for payment of the amount stipulated in Ext.P6 may
be extended. Having considered the fact that the petitioner had
challenged the order in this writ petition I am inclined to grant
W.P.(C).28098/09-F 3
extension of time by three weeks from today for complying with
the conditions stipulated in Ext.P6.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb