IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2009 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30190 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.ANUPAM MOTORS, IQBAL ROAD, NORTH KOTTACHERY, KANHANGAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI.NARAYANAN P. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.T.G.ABHILASH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, HOSDURG. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONR (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOZHIKODE. 3. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KASARGOD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 30190 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. Aggrieved by Exts.P1 & P2 orders of assessment pertaining to the year 2005-06 & 2007–08 petitioner had filed appeals before the 2nd respondent as evidenced from Exts.P3 & Ext.P4, respectively. The petitioner had also preferred Exts.P5 & P6 stay petitions along with the appeals seeking stay of collection of tax amount in dispute, pending disposal of the appeals. It is submitted that appeals as well as the accompanying petitions are pending consideration and disposal before the 2nd respondent. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the returns filed with respect to the years concerned were rejected only on the ground that the petitioner had declared low gross profit. The petitioner is relying a decision of this court in Classic Marbles Vs. State of Kerala ( (2009) 25 VST 295), wherein this court held that mere ipse dixit of the assessing W.P.(C)No. 30190 of 2009 -2- authority that in the line of business in which the assessee is carrying on, the gross profit must be on a higher side, is not a reason for rejecting the books of accounts, without there being any convincing material to show that the assessee had in fact suppressed actual profit. Under such circumstances the petitioner is seeking direction for early disposal of the appeal and to keep in abeyance further steps of recovery till then. 3. Having considered facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the appeals as well as stay petitions, taking note of all contentions raised by the petitioner including the contention based on the ruling of this court. 4. Therefore the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Exts.P5 & P6 stay petitions after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and after adverting all the contentions raised by the petitioner against the assessment. The orders in this regard W.P.(C)No. 30190 of 2009 -3- shall be passed as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The respondents are directed to keep in abeyance all further steps for realization of the amounts covered under Ext.P1 & P2 order of assessments till the 2nd respondent passes orders on the stay petitions. 5. It is further directed that the 2nd respondent shall also take all earnest efforts for an early disposal of the appeals as early as possible, thereafter. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/