IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6218 of 2011(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PRATAPSIMHAN, PROPRIETOR M/S.ALIGN BUILDERS B23, ASOKA APARTMENTS, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI - 31. BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI SRI.SANTHOSH P.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC) O/O THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 15. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 15. 3. THE INSPECTING ASST.COMMISSIONER, DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAX, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 30. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.6218 of 2011-B ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Ext.P5 interim order issued while disposing the stay petition filed along with an appeal which was instituted against Ext.P1 order of assessment, is the subject matter of challenge. The petitioner is a works contractor engaged in civil works. According to the petitioner he is entitled for payment of tax at compounded rate and he had in fact opted for compounding. Ext.P1 assessment was completed on the premise that the petitioner had failed in filing returns and paying the tax due thereon within the time stipulated under the statute. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the required returns were filed subsequently and the entire tax due under the compounding rate has already been paid, along with interest. It is further contended that the estimation of the turn over without verification of books of accounts is highly unreasonable and arbitrary. 2. I notice that the matter is now in seizin of the W.P(C) No.6218 of 2011-B 2 statutory appellate authority. While disposing the interim applications seeking stay, the said authority had found that there occurred delay in filing the returns. However, it is admitted that the petitioner had subsequently filed return and paid tax along with interest. It is contended by the petitioner that the delay caused in filing the returns was due to reasons beyond his control. 3. Considering the facts as stated above, the appellate authority had issued an interim order insisting upon the petitioner to make payment of 1/3rd amount due and to furnish security for the balance amount. I am not prima facie impressed to accept the contentions raised to the effect that the impugned interim order is one issued without proper application of mind. However, I noticed that no specific reason was stated by the appellate authority by insisting payment of 1/3rd of the amount due. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner is claiming right to compound the tax liability and also taking note of the fact that he had remitted tax due on the compounded rate along with W.P(C) No.6218 of 2011-B 3 interest, I am of the view that interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the appellate authority to have an expeditious disposal of the appeal by imposing less rigorous condition. 4. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 appeal, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. Till such time, the appeal is disposed of, in modification of Ext.P5 order, the respondents are restrained from proceeding with further steps of recovery, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- within two weeks from today and on furnishing security bond for the balance amount within the said time. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab