IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15344 of 2010(P)
1. M/S.LOTUS 8 A' PART HOTELS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (LT),
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),
3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :19/05/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
--------------------------------------------
WP(C) NO. 15344 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of May, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of the
condition imposed by the appellate authority vide Ext.P16 whereby 50% of the
disputed amount is ordered to be satisfied towards the assessment and
penalty in respect of the assessment years except in the case of 2008-09
where it is 60%.
2. The case projected by the petitioner is that Ext.P16 is only a
sterio-typed or mechanical order which is not liable to be sustained in view of
various judgments rendered by this Court as well as the Apex Court holding
that interim orders cannot be passed in quite a mechanical manner.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
4. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the proceedings filed
by the petitioner availing the statutory remedy by way of appeal and
interlocutory application for stay was the subject matter of this Court earlier in
WP(C) 37095/2009 wherein Ext.P14 verdict was passed directing the
appellate authority to consider the matter as specified, simultaneously
intercepting the coercive proceedings for a period of one month. Pursuant to
the above verdict, the I.A. for stay was considered, leading to issuance of
Ext.P16, whereby interim stay was granted during pendency of the appeal, on
2
WP(C) No. 15344/2010
condition that the petitioner satisfied the liability to the extent as specified
therein (50%/60%), which is under challenge in this Writ Petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
contentions raised by the petitioner in the appeal have not been properly
adverted to; which is strongly rebutted from the part of the respondents.
Referring to Ext.P16, the learned Government Pleader submits that the
figures reflected from the Books of Accounts maintained by the petitioner
have been very much adverted to and the finding is very much supported
with reasons.
6. Going by the facts and figures, it is very much evident that the
appellate authority has considered the various aspects; and the condition
has been imposed on the basis of proper application of mind. However,
taking note of the fact that the amount involved in the case is quite
substantial, this Court finds that interest of justice could be satisfied, if the
petitioner is directed to deposit 1/3 of the liability, instead of 50/60% as now
ordered by the appellate authority, vide Ext.P16.
7. In the above circumstances, the petitioner will continue to have
the benefit of interim stay granted by the appellate authority vide Ext.P16,
subject to satisfaction of 1/3 of the disputed liability. However, since the
time stipulated by the appellate authority is already over, the petitioner is
granted ten days’ more time to satisfy the amount as aforesaid.
3
WP(C) No. 15344/2010
8. The 2nd respondent is also directed to consider the statutory
appeals preferred by the petitioner and to have finalized in accordance with
law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
dnc