IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36656 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- VALSA JUSTIN, PROPRIETRESS, M/S.ASHLY BONDS, MUDICODE, NEAR AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, PATTIKKAD P.O., THRISSUR-680 652. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, FIRST CIRCLE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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