IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 W.P(C).No. 7323 of 2008(V) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- M/S.JEMIS ENTERPRISES DOOR NO. KM 32/652, SOUTH KALAMASSERY COCHIN-22 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR.JALEEL. BY ADV. SRI.K.SRIKUMAR SRI.K.J.CHERRY BABU SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,(A.A)~ OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AA).ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AA) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES ERNAKULAM. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 7323 OF 2008 V ==================== Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, the challenge is against Ext.P7, by which the 2nd respondent has granted a conditional stay on the petitioner remitting 1/3rd of the tax and furnishing security for the balance amount. 2. The facts of the case are that aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment, petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal along with an application for stay, in which Ext.P7 order was passed. Petitioner contends that in terms of Ext.P4, a circular issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the tax liability is that of the cement companies and if that be so, the very basis of Ext.P1 order of assessment is completely erroneous. Petitioner is also referring to Ext.P8, an order passed by the appellate authority in identical circumstances, setting aside the order of assessment and directing reconsideration by the assessing authority in the WPC 7323/08 :2 : light of Ext.P4 circular. 3. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the submissions of the learned Government Pleader, I feel in this matter, the appellate authority has to consider the matter in the light of Ext.P4 circular as done by the appellate authority in Ext.P8 order. In view of the above, I do not think it reasonable to insist on a deposit as ordered by the appellate authority in Ext.P7. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing that the 2nd respondent shall consider Ext.P2 appeal filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Ext.P7 order requiring remittance of 1/3rd of the balance amount will stand quashed and I direct that there will a stay of recovery of the amount due in terms of Ext.P1 pending disposal of Ext.P2 appeal. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp