IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30190 of 2009(P)
1. MM/S.ANUPAM MOTORS, IQBAL ROAD, NORTH
... Petitioner
Vs
1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, HOSDURG.
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONR (APPEALS),
3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :26/10/2009
O R D E R
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No. 30190 of 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
1. Aggrieved by Exts.P1 & P2 orders of assessment
pertaining to the year 2005-06 & 2007-08 petitioner had
filed appeals before the 2nd respondent as evidenced from
Exts.P3 & Ext.P4, respectively. The petitioner had also
preferred Exts.P5 & P6 stay petitions along with the appeals
seeking stay of collection of tax amount in dispute, pending
disposal of the appeals. It is submitted that appeals as well
as the accompanying petitions are pending consideration
and disposal before the 2nd respondent.
2. Contention of the petitioner is that the returns
filed with respect to the years concerned were rejected only
on the ground that the petitioner had declared low gross
profit. The petitioner is relying a decision of this court in
Classic Marbles Vs. State of Kerala ( (2009) 25 VST 295),
wherein this court held that mere ipse dixit of the assessing
W.P.(C)No. 30190 of 2009
-2-
authority that in the line of business in which the assessee
is carrying on, the gross profit must be on a higher side, is
not a reason for rejecting the books of accounts, without
there being any convincing material to show that the
assessee had in fact suppressed actual profit. Under such
circumstances the petitioner is seeking direction for early
disposal of the appeal and to keep in abeyance further steps
of recovery till then.
3. Having considered facts and circumstances of the
case, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be
disposed of directing the appellate authority to consider and
dispose of the appeals as well as stay petitions, taking note
of all contentions raised by the petitioner including the
contention based on the ruling of this court.
4. Therefore the 2nd respondent is directed to
consider and pass orders on Exts.P5 & P6 stay petitions
after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,
and after adverting all the contentions raised by the
petitioner against the assessment. The orders in this regard
W.P.(C)No. 30190 of 2009
-3-
shall be passed as early as possible, at any rate within a
period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this
judgment. The respondents are directed to keep in
abeyance all further steps for realization of the amounts
covered under Ext.P1 & P2 order of assessments till the
2nd respondent passes orders on the stay petitions.
5. It is further directed that the 2nd respondent shall
also take all earnest efforts for an early disposal of the
appeals as early as possible, thereafter.
C.K. ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
shg/