IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2009 / 11TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18522 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MR. SIBICHEN DEVASSIA, PROPREITOR, JESS RUBBER WORKS, INDUSTRIAL NAGAR P.O., CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. E.P.GOVINDAN RESPONDENT: --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, FIRST CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, CHANGANACHERRY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 18522 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 2nd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 assessment order passed by the first respondent has been subjected to challenge by filing Ext.P2 memorandum of appeal, which was accompanied with Ext.P4 petition for stay, before the second respondent. The second respondent, after considering Ext.P4 granted an interim stay, on satisfying the position that the petitioner (appellant therein) had made out a prima facie case, whereby 1/3rd of the balance tax amount due was directed to be deposited within two weeks; simultaneously furnishing adequate security for the remaining amount, to the satisfaction of the assessing authority. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the impugned order imposing the condition upon the petitioner is not correct or sustainable in view of the relevant documents to substantiate the case of the petitioner, which were very much produced before the appellate authority before passing Ext.P6 order, though the same could not be produced at the time of filing of the appeal. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. On going through Ext.P6, it is evident that appellate authority was very much conscious and aware of the case projected by the WP (C) No. 18522 of 2009 : 2 : petitioner and as to the specific grounds raised before the said authority. However, it is not discernible as to whether the relevant documents were actually produced by the petitioner since the observation contained therein is that the learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioner argued that the export documents were 'very much available' in 'majority of the cases'. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner has produced copies of bills as Exts.P7 and P8 before this Court and that petitioner is very much ready and willing to produce the originals before the second respondent. It is also contended that, there is no detailed discussion in Ext.P6 order, while imposing the condition upon the petitioner and that Ext.P6 could only be regarded as a mechanical order and not in conformity with the mandate given by the Apex Court as per the decision reported in Ravi Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax Delhi and another (2009 (22) VST 529) . 5. In the above facts and circumstances, Ext.P6 order is set aside and the second respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P4 petition for stay and to pass a 'speaking order', subject to the condition that the petitioner shall produce the originals of Exts.P7 to P8 before the second respondent within two weeks from today. On production of the records as above, Ext.P4 shall be considered and finalized, passing appropriate WP (C) No. 18522 of 2009 : 3 : orders thereon, within a further period of two weeks thereafter. Subject to the above, the coercive steps, stated as being pursued against the petitioner, pursuant to Ext.P5 under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd