IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 8395 of 2011(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- AMBILEY G., PROPRIETOR, THRIPTHY FLAMES, THAMARASSERY COMPLEX, MUTTAMBALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 004. BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, II-ND CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM-686 004. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), KOLLAM-691 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 8395 of 2011(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPEAL PERTAINING TO 2005-2006. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPEAL PERTAINING TO 2006-2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPEAL PERTAINING TO 2007-2008. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20/11/2009 IN WP(C) NO. 33436/2009. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE AMRITA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, KOCHI DATED 19/08/2010. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10/01/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 8395 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T Against the orders of assessment finalised with respect to the years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08, the petitioner had preferred statutory appeal before the 2nd respondent. When coercive steps of recovery was initiated during pendency of the appeal, the petitioner had approached this Court and in Ext.P4 judgment the appellate authority was directed to consider and pass orders on the delay condonation application and then on the stay petitions, if the appeals are already registered. But the 2nd respondent found that the petitioner had failed to make payment of the admitted tax and therefore the appeals were rejected by virtue of Exts.P1 to P3 orders. 2. Through Ext.P6 certificate obtained from the assessing authority, it is evident that the petitioner had remitted the admitted tax. On the said premise, the petitioner seeks direction to the appellate authority to 2 W.P.(C).No. 8395 of 2011 restore the appeals and to dispose of the same on merits. 3. Heard ; learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents. It is contended that the appeals were filed belatedly, along with the petitions seeking condonation of delay. It is also pointed out that the appeals were rejected through Exts.P1 to P3 orders as early as on 3.3.2010, whereas the admitted tax was seen paid only in January 2011. Therefore, according to the respondents there is no merits in the contentions raised and it is not proper for the appellate authority to entertain the appeals. 4. Evidently, there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in remitting the admitted tax. It is clear that the petitioner had failed to comply with the pre-requisite condition for registering the appeals. However, the petitioner points out that his father was undergoing prolonged treatment for cancer and she was not in a position to follow up the matter with due diligence. Ext.P5 medical certificate is produced to show that father of the petitioner was undergoing treatment at Amrita Institute of 3 W.P.(C).No. 8395 of 2011 Medical Science as inpatient from 7.10.2010 onwards. 5. Considering the fact that, against the rejection of appeals the petitioner has no further remedy provided under statute and also considering the circumstances as narrated above, I am of the view that, even though interference on merits is not warranted, indulgence can be shown in permitting the petitioner to agitate the appeal on merits. This especially because of the settled legal principle that, as far as possible, causes should be decided on merits rather than disposing the same on technicalities. It is evident that, even though belatedly, the petitioner had remitted the admitted tax. Interest of justice will be served if the appellate authority is directed to consider and dispose of the appeals, after restoration. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Exts.P1 to P3 orders are hereby quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to restore the appeals filed by the petitioner, which were rejected through Exts.P1 to P3, and to dispose of the same on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to 4 W.P.(C).No. 8395 of 2011 the petitioner. The appeals shall be disposed of, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 7. Till such time the appeals are disposed of, the respondents are restrained from recovering the amounts covered under the orders of assessment with respect to the years concerned, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting 1/3rd of the disputed amounts and on furnishing security bond for the balance amount, within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, Judge ami/