IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30353 of 2009(L)
1. V.K.CEMENTS & STEELS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS),
... Respondent
2. ASST. COMMISSIONER,
3. CHANDRANKUTTY KUYYATIL, AGED 46 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.NIRMAL. S
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :27/10/2009
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.30353 OF 2009
------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
———————-
1. Petitioner is challenging the condition imposed in
Ext.P3 interim order of stay granted by the 1st respondent.
Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment the petitioner had
preferred Ext.P2 appeal. Along with the appeal, the petitioner
had filed stay petition seeking stay of collection of tax amount in
dispute, pending disposal of the appeal. Ext.P3 is the order
issued on the stay petition. On a perusal of Ext.P3 order it is
revealed that the appellate authority had conducted hearing on
the petition and adverted to the contentions raised by the
petitioner in the appeal. The appellate authority observed that
the appellant had not produced any conclusive evidence for
granting stay and it is observed that prima facie the assessment
is seen made on sustainable grounds. Therefore the appellate
authority had issued the interim stay, imposing a condition of
payment of an amount of Rs.50,000/- on or before 24.10.2009
and to furnish security for the balance amounts.
2. The impugned order Ext.P3 is an order issued
exercising discretion of the appellate authority. It is evident that
W.P.(C).30353/09-L 2
the appellate authority had adverted to the contentions and after
proper application of mind the impugned stay order is issued. It
is reflected in Ext.P3 that the appellate authority had adverted to
the contentions and applied its mind while issuing the interim
order. Therefore I find no illegality, irregularity or impropriety
to interfere with Ext.P3.
3. However learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the condition imposed in Ext.P3 is unworkable considering
the acute financial stringencies which is now being faced by the
petitioner. Therefore he prays for a reduction in the amount
with respect to the condition stipulated. Eventhough
interference on merits in this regard is not desirable, I am of the
opinion that some indulgence can be shown in the matter of
permitting the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- inspite
of Rs.50,000/- insisted in Ext.P3.
4. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of modifying
Ext.P3 order to the extent it composed condition for payment of
Rs.50,000/-. The 1st respondent is directed to consider and pass
orders on Ext.P2 appeal as early as possible, at any rate within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner. Respondents are directed to keep in abeyance all
steps for realisation of the amounts covered under Ext.P1
W.P.(C).30353/09-L 3
assessment, on condition of the petitioner remitting an amount
of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) on or before
10.12.2009 and on furnishing security for the remaining amount
as per the assessment.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb