IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16784 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER:- ------------------ SARASWATHY AMMA, UDAYA ENTERPRISES, GAYATHRI, KIZHAKKEKARA, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH SRI.J.JULIUS SMITH SRI.K.S.ROCKEY RESPONDENTS:- --------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDDIN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16784 of 2011(W) PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1(a): COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD.26.11.2010 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2005-06. P1(b): COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD.26.11.2010 FOR THE YEAR 2006-07 from the 2ND RESPONDENT. P1(c): COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD.26.11.2010 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2007-08. P1(d): COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD.30.9.2010 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2008-09. P1(e): COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD.30.9.2010 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2009-10. P2(a): COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD.6.1.2011 FOR THE YEAR 2005-06. P2(b): COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD.6.1.2011 FOR THE YEAR 2006-07. P2(c): COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD.6.1.2011 FOR THE YEAR 2007-08. P2(d): COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD.16.11.2010 FOR THE YEAR 2008-09. P2(e): COPY OF THE APPEAL DTD.16.11.2010 FOR THE YEAR 2009-10. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.27.5.2011 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL. ( TRUE COPY ) PA TO JUDGE. Kvs/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.16784 of 2011-W. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th June, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge is against Ext.P3 order issued by the first respondent appellate authority disposing the stay petitions filed along with the appeals instituted, with respect to the assessments completed for the years 2005-'06 to 2009-'10. Through the interim order, stay was granted against collection of the disputed amounts, subject to condition of the petitioner making payment of 50% of the balance amount and on furnishing adequate security for the remaining. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the condition stipulated is highly illegal and that the petitioner is finding it difficult to comply with that condition. It is contended that the contentions raised in the appeals were not considered in its real perspective and such condition was imposed is in a mechanical manner without proper WP(C).No.16784/2011-W. 2 application of mind. 3. Heard; learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. It is contended by the Government Pleader that the only dispute raised in the appeals pertain to the rate of tax applicable to margarine, which is a question now stand settled through decision of a Division Bench of this court reported in 18 KTR 361. Therefore, it is contended that the appeals deserve no merits and the imposition of the condition to pay 50% is not justifiable. 4. On a perusal of the impugned order, I noticed that the appellate authority had noticed the contentions raised. After observing that the rate of tax applicable to margarine had already been settled through decision of this Court, the appellate authority found that the main contention raised in the appeals are not found to be correct. However, observing that the petitioner is entitled for a conditional stay, the impugned order is passed. By the tenure of the impugned order it is revealed that there is proper WP(C).No.16784/2011-W. 3 application of mind and the imposition of the condition is made after considering the contentions raised by the petitioner. I am not in agreement with the argument made by the petitioner to the effect that the impugned order is unsustainable. 5. However, the petitioner expresses difficulty in complying with the condition, considering the financial stringency experienced by her, at present. I am of the view that a direction for disposal of the appeals on an early basis and imposition of a less rigorous condition will serve the ends of justice. 6. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 series of appeals after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner as early as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 7. Till such time appeals are disposed of as directed above, recovery of disputed tax pertaining to five WP(C).No.16784/2011-W. 4 assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance subject to condition of the petitioner remitting 1/3rd of the total amount due and on furnishing security bond for the balance amount, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. With the above condition I modify the conditions stipulated in Ext.P3 order. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, (Judge) Kvs/-