IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 8779 of 2009(N) --------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M/S.DAMODAR CASHEW.CO,AMBALATHARA, PULLOOR.PO, KANHANGAD,KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY YOGESH PRABHU, MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADV. SRI.ARIKKAT VIJAYAN MENON SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. ASST.COMMISSIONER (KVAT),COMMERCIAL TAXES SPECIAL CIRCLE, KASARAGOD. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS),KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 8779 OF 2009 N -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd March, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is taken up for hearing by consent of both parties. 2. Petitioner challenges Exts.P18 to P21 orders passed by the First Appellate Authority dismissing the First Appeals filed by the petitioner against the assessment orders. By Ext.P17 Judgment, this Court directed the stay petitions filed by the petitioner to be considered. According to the petitioner, the stay petitions were argued. However, the Appeals themselves were dismissed. Even though the learned Government Pleader would submit that there were only three points urged and which were argued and the Appeals were rightly rejected, I would think that the procedure followed may not be fair. Hearing a stay petition is different from hearing the Appeal itself. The hearing of the stay petition is for arriving at prima facie conclusions for the purpose of granting interim relief or for refusing it. It is WPC. 8779/09 N 2 different from the fulfledged hearing which usually informs the hearing of the Appeal. Therefore, I would think that this is an appropriate case where this Court should interfere. Accordingly, the impugned orders, Exts.P18 to P21 are quashed. The petitioner or its representative shall be present before the second respondent on 26.3.2009 at 11 AM and the second respondent will proceed to hear the petitioner and take a decision thereon in accordance with law within fifteen days thereafter. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge