IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23390 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.TEECEES SUPER MARKET, 'EFFERMINT HOUSE', WEST FORT ROAD, PUNKUNNAM, THRISSUR - 680 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, ABBAS KHALID. BY ADV. MR. K.J.ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AUDIT ASSESSMENT), DEPT.COMMERCIAL TAXES, THRISSUR - 680 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), THRISSUR - 680 020. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 23390 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 27th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of the condition imposed by the appellate authority, whereby 50 % of the disputed amount is directed to be deposited and to furnish security for the balance amount so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during pendency of the appeal. Many a ground has been raised as to the course pursued by the assessing authority and in turn by the appellate authority. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that , the petitioner is very much maintaining all the books of accounts in conformity with the relevant provisions of law, which however has not been property considered by the appellate authority, while imposing the condition. The learned counsel further submits that, absolutely no reason is stated in the order while fixing the condition as above, which is sought to be intercepted by filing this Writ Petition. 3. The learned Government Pleader, with reference to the materials on record, particularly Ext. P5, submits that, the specific case of the petitioner that the addition made is quite excessive; that the W.P. (C) No. 23390 of 2010 : 2 : irregularities noticed by the audit authorities did not reveal any suppression has been considered and that the books of accounts stated as maintained by the petitioner also have been caused to be verified. It is after such verification, the appellate authority arrived at a finding that, it was revealed that the petitioner/appellant was not maintaining any books of accounts 'during the audit visit'. It is also observed that, the addition made by the assessing authority is in accordance with irregularities noted at the time of audit visit. This being the position, the impugned order has been passed by the appellate authority with proper application of mind, submits the learned Government Pleader. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, there is clear violation of the procedure as contemplated under Rule 37(3) and as such the petitioner is not liable to be penalized by the appellate authority; in this regard. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances and also the extent of the liability involved, this Court finds that. the condition imposed by the appellate authority can be scaled down to 1/3rd instead of 50 %. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to satisfy the 1/3rd of the disputed liability and to furnish security for the balance amount before the assessing authority within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy W.P. (C) No. 23390 of 2010 : 3 : of this judgment. Subject to this, the petitioner shall continue to avail the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the appeal. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd