IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2010 / 14TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 12540 of 2010(N) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M/S.CONFIDENT PROJECTS INDIA LTD., CONFIDENT BUILDING, JANATHA JUNCTION, KADAVANTHRA P.O., KOCHI-682 019, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER T.A.JOSEPH. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER (W.C), O/O. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R3 BYSR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 12540 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of the condition imposed by the 2nd respondent vide Ext.P7 directing the petitioner to satisfy a sum of Rs.40 lakhs and to furnish sufficient security for the balance amount, so as to avail the benefit of stay during the pendency of the appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is not actually supposed to enshoulder any liability, as no tax is attracted to the case in hand and that the course and proceedings pursued by the 1st respondent are wrong and illegal in all respects, which made the petitioner to challenge Ext.P3 order passed by the said respondent by filing Ext.P4 appeal, along with Ext.P4(a) petition for stay. The learned counsel also submits that, the appellate authority, while imposing the condition, has not given any specific reason so as to sustain such huge liability upon the shoulders of the petitioner. It is further contended that, it cannot be reckoned as the 'speaking order' in the light of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Ravi Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi and another [22 VST 529]. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 2 WP(C) No. 12540/2010 4. In the course of the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that, a sum of Rs.25 lakhs has already been remitted by the petitioner on 31.03.2010, so as to prove the bonafides of the petitioner. In the above circumstance, this Court finds it fit and proper to have the appeal itself considered by the appellate authority, to put a finality to the issue. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P4 appeal on merits and pass final orders thereon, in accordance with law, of course after hearing the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance till such time, on condition that the petitioner executes a ‘simple bond’ for the balance amount. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc