Tharish.P.S vs Commercial Tax Officer on 22 June, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 19338 of 2010(N)


1. THARISH.P.S, PROPRIETOR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),

                For Petitioner  :SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :22/06/2010

 O R D E R
                   P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                      W.P. (C) No. 19338 of 2010
                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                 Dated, this the 22nd day of June, 2010

                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner who is running a metal crusher unit is stated as

aggrieved of the condition imposed in Exts. P6 and P7 orders passed

by the second respondent/appellate authority, directing the petitioner to

satisfy the 50 % of the disputed liability and to furnish security for the

balance amount, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during the

pendency of the appeal.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the specific

objection raised by the petitioner as taken note in the orders passed by

the assessing authority vide Exts. P2 and P3 have not been properly

adverted to by the appellate authority while passing the interim order.

It is stated that, the fixation of the liability solely by placing reliance on

the ‘unit of power consumption’ is not correct of proper. The learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner’s unit is running

without any ‘primary crusher’ and to prove his bona fides the petitioner

has requested the concerned authority to visit and conduct a trial run of

the unit.

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

W.P. (C) No. 19338 of 2010
: 2 :

4. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that,

the appellate authority has very much adverted to the contentions

raised by the petitioner/appellant, taking note of the specific points of

arguments as given in the facing sheet itself. The only question, if at all

which deserves any consideration is, whether the extent of the liability

required to be satisfied (50%) is correct or sustainable.

5. Considering the nature of contentions raised in the

memorandum of appeal and as brought out in the Writ Petition, this

Court finds it fit and proper to have the condition varied by scaling down

the liability from 50 % to ‘1/3rd’. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to

satisfy the 1/3rd of the disputed liability and furnish security ordered by

the second respondent vide Exts.P6 and P7, during the penency of the

appeal. The second respondent is also directed to consider and finalize

Exts. P4 and P5 appeals, passing final orders 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.

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

kmd