IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36656 of 2009(B)
1. VALSA JUSTIN, PROPRIETRESS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)
... Respondent
2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJU JOSEPH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :12/01/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 36656 OF 2009
.........................................................................
Dated this the 12th January , 2010
J U D G M E N T
Challenging Exts. P1 to P3 assessment orders passed by
the assessing authority in respect of assessment years, 2005-06,
2006-07 and 2007-08, the petitioner has preferred statutory
appeals before the first respondent as borne by Exts.P4 to P6,
along with petitions for stay. However, after considering the
petitions for stay, the first respondent passed Exts.P7 to P9
interim orders, whereby, the petitioner has been directed to
deposit 1/3rd of the disputed liability and to furnish ‘security
bond’ for the balance amount before the assessing authority,
within the specified time, so as to avail the fruits of interim
stay, which in turn is subjected to challenge in this Writ Petition.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there
is a specific finding by the appellate authority in the impugned
interim orders that the matter is not based on any particular
W.P.(C) No. 36656 OF 2009
2
offence and that no specific omission or suppression has been
detected. Despite the above observation, the appellate
authority has directed the petitioner to deposit 1/3rd of the due
amount, which comes to lakhs, causing undue burden on the
shoulders of the petitioner, which is not correct or sustainable
as the said orders have been passed in a mechanical manner and
contrary to the mandate, in Supreme Electrical Engineering
(P) Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer (2008 (3) KLT 805),
submits the learned Counsel.
4. After hearing the rival submissions, this Court finds that
there is considerable force in the submission made by the
learned Counsel for the petitioner, particularly in view of the
above specific observations made by the appellate authority
while passing Exts.P7 to P9 interim orders. The reasoning given
by the said authority does not tally with the observations as to
the factual position contained in the very same order . That
apart, the matter appears to have been considered and the
condition has been imposed in a stereo-typed manner, which,
hence, is not correct or sustainable; more so in view of the law
W.P.(C) No. 36656 OF 2009
3
declared in the decision cited supra.
5. In the above facts and circumstances, the stipulation
contained in Exts. P7 to P9 orders directing the petitioner to
satisfy 1/3rd of the disputed liability for availing the benefit of
the interim order stands vacated. The first respondent is
directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P4 to
P6 appeals in accordance with law, of course, after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt
of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that the stay
granted by the appellate authority as per Exts. P7 to P9 orders
will continue to be in force unconditionally till such time.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk