IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19040 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.D.ALEXANDER,AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.DOMINIC,VALLIKUNNEL HOUSE,KALKUNDU.P.O, KARUVARAKUNDU,(PROPRIETOR,KOCHUKUDIYIL AGENCIES, OPPOSITE BUS STAND,MANNARKKAD,PALAKKAD). BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER SRI.ABDUL MAJEED.N RESPONDENTS: 1 ---------------- 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES,PALAKKAD. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER(I), MANNARKKAD. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C)No.19040 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 18th June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the condition imposed by the appellate authority vide Ext.P2, whereby the petitioner has been directed to satisfy 10% of the disputed liability and furnish security , so as to avail the benefit of the interim stay during the pendency of the appeal. 2. The grievance projected in the Writ Petition shows that the petitioner was assessed for huge amount as borne by Ext. P3 order passed by the assessing authority referring to the various transactions, with which, according to the petitioner, he is having no connection whatsoever. The petitioner has challenged the same by filing statutory appeal along with I.A. for stay before the third respondent. Since coercive proceedings were pursued without any regard to the pendency of the above proceedings, the petitioner was constrained to approach this W.P.(C)No.19040 OF 2010 2 Court by filing W.P.(C) No.33760 of 2009, which culminated in Ext.P1 judgment, whereby the appellate authority was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders in the I.As. preferred to condone the delay and also for stay. It was pursuant to Ext.P1 verdict, the appellate authority considered the applications and Ext. P2 order has been passed in the I.A. for stay, directing the petitioner to satisfy 10% of the due amount, which in turn is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition now imposed by the appellate authority is rather an onerous one though the extent is shown only as 10%, which is more so, in view of the fact that the appellate authority was very much satisfied with the explanation offered from the part of the petitioner that the goods stated as purchased by the petitioner from Ottappalam were very much accounted in the books of accounts and that the petitioner had never purchased any materials as stated by the assessing authority . It is also stated that the petitioner is not responsible for showing the 'TIN' W.P.(C)No.19040 OF 2010 3 of the petitioner in the invoice of somebody else . The petitioner also places reliance on Ext. P4 certificate issued by the second respondent/the Commercial Tax Officer, Ottappalam in support of the stand taken by the petitioner . Reliance is also sought to be placed on Exts. P5 to P8 purchase statements of M/s. Kochukudiyil Agencies 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that a final picture can be arrived at, only on finalisation of the appeal and that there is considerable force in the submissions and stand being taken from the part of the petitioner . In the said circumstances, the third respondent is directed to consider and pass final orders in the concerned appeal, in which Ext.P2 interim order has been passed by the appellate authority . The final orders, as above, shall be passed after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment . It is made clear that till such final orders are passed in the appeal, the recovery proceedings, if any, being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance, on condition W.P.(C)No.19040 OF 2010 4 that the petitioner furnishes 'security bond' for the amount equal to the amount in dispute, to the satisfaction of the assessing authority. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk