IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2010 / 3RD ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19748 of 2010(P) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- T.P.ABDURAHIMAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.MANSU MARBLES, B.P.ANGADI, TIRUR. BY DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE CTO, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 101. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), SALES TAX COMPLEX, PERUMANNUR, ERNAKULAM - 682 015. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, MALAPPURAM AT MANJERI - 676 102. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.19748 of 2010-P ---------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has challenged Ext.P1 assessment order for the assessment year 2009-10, by filing Ext.P2 appeal, along with Ext.P3 petition for stay. After considering the contentions, the second respondent/appellate authority passed Ext.P5 interim order, on condition that the petitioner satisfied 40% of the amount due and furnished security bond for the balance amount. The condition imposed is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in 'Ground No.6' of Ext.P2 appeal, the petitioner/appellant has raised a contention that the petitioner/appellant has paid input tax amounting to Rs.1,61,212/- and cess amounting to Rs.1,601/-, whereas the tax liability vide Ext.P1 is only to the extent of Rs.1,20,094/- and hence the petitioner is entitled to obtain unconditional stay. The learned counsel submits that this aspect has not been considered by the appellate authority, while passing the interim order. W.P(C) No.19748 of 2010-P 2 3. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the contentions raised by the petitioner as to the claim for 'exemption' earlier and the 'payment' of tax as stated in Ground 6 of the memorandum of appeal do not reconcile with each other. When the petitioner says that he was eligible for exemption, the figures given speak something else and hence no interference is warranted with regard to Ext.P6, submits the learned Government Pleader. 4. However, considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the issue could be finalised, once the appeal is heard and disposed of. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to finalise Ext.P2 appeal in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible; at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance, till such time, on condition that the petitioner satisfies 1/4th of the amount due and furnishes security for the balance, to the satisfaction of the assessing authority, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON ab JUDGE