IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 15958 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AGASTIN ABRAHAM,APEX MARKETING, CC-32/21/A1,PUTHIYA ROAD,PALARIVATTOM,KOCHI-25. (REPRESENTED BY P.A.HOLDER SRI.SOBY.M.). BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,3RD CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS),COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM,PIN:682015. 3. INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM AT KAKKANAD,PIN:682 031. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,TAXES DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN;695001. SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.YONADAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 15958 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext. P5 interim order whereby the 2nd respondent directed the petitioner to satisfy 25% of the liability and to furnish security for the balance amount, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the statutory appeals. 2. The case of the petitioner is that an ex-parte assessment order was passed against the petitioner in respect of November 2009. The default was with regard to the non filing of return for November 2009. It is contended that the default was never wilful, but because of some unforeseen circumstances and the petitioner has satisfied the entire tax liability by filing return on 08.01.2010 with interest as specified. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal challenging Ext.P2 assessment order, along with necessary I.A. for stay. The 2nd respondent, while considering the I.A. for stay, passed Ext.P5 order quite in a mechanical manner and directed to satisfy 25% of the liability as aforesaid, which according to the petitioner is not at all correct or a 'speaking order' and hence is under challenge. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Obviously, as borne by Ext.P2, which is assessment order, 2 WP(C) No. 15958/2010 the notice issued to the petitioner is dated 23.12.2009 and it is stated as served to the petitioner on the very same day. Observing that the petitioner had not filed reply to the notice till date, the assessing authority passed the assessment order on 02.01.2010. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has filed Ext.P1 return on 07.01.2010, simultaneously satisfying the tax liability, with interest, as specified. This being the position, the matter ought to have been considered by the appellate authority more meticulously, while passing Ext.P5 interim order, submits the learned counsel. 5. Considering the particular facts and circumstances, this Court finds that interest of justice could be satisfied by directing the appellate authority to consider Ext.P3 appeal itself in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P2 appeal and pass final orders after hearing the petitioner in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that till final orders are passed on Ext.P3 appeal as aforesaid, all further coercive steps stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till such time on condition that the petitioner furnishes security for the disputed liability. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc