IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21372 of 2010(V)
1. M/S.NITCO LTD.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)
3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.ANIL D. NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :09/07/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 21372 OF 2010
.........................................................................
Dated this the 9th July , 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is challenging the correctness and
sustainability of Ext. P7 order whereby a condition has been
imposed to satisfy 1/3rd of the disputed amount and furnish
security for the balane amount to avail the benefit of interim
stay during the pendency of the appeal.
2.The sequence of events as described in the Writ Petition
shows that being aggrieved of Ext.P1 assessment order in
respect of 2005-06 passed by the first respondent, the petitioner
has preferred Ext. P2 appeal along with Ext, P3 petition for stay
and it was after considering the I.A. for stay, pursuant to the
direction given by this Court vide Ext. P6 judgment that Ext. P7
order was passed by the second respondent imposing a
condition. Many a ground has been raised in the Writ Petition
challenging sustainability both on facts as well as on question of
law.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the amount in
dispute and appropriate directions might be given to the
W.P.(C) No. 21372 OF 2010
2
appellate authority to consider and finalise the appeal so as to
achieve finality to the issue.
4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
5. Taking note of the particular facts and circumstances,
the second respondent is directed to consider and pass
appropriate orders on Ext. P2 appeal, in accordance with law, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. All coercive
proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner vide
Ext.P5 shall be kept in abeyance, on condition that the
petitioner satisfies 1/3rd of the disputed amount and furnishes
security for the balance amount as directed in Ext. P7. However,
taking note of the fact that the period stipulated in Ext.P7 is
already over, the said condition shall be satisfied within two
weeks.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk