IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19428 of 2010(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- IFB INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HOME APPLIANCES DIVISION, 36/1923, SEBASTIAN ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN -17, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER - FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS SOUTH. BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS, SRI.P.GOPINATH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KREALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (TAXES), SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), SPECIAL CIRCLE-II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DY.COMMISSIONR (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 19428 OF 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Being aggrieved of the assessment made by the concerned assessing authority, the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent by filing a statutory appeal, which led to Ext.P1 common appellate order, whereby the matter was remanded to the assessing authority to arrive at a decision afresh, as specified. The department approached the Tribunal and finally, the matter came up for consideration before this Court, which led to Ext.P2 judgment, whereby the assessing authority was directed to consider some other issues also. Based on Ext.P2, Exts.P3 and P4 modified assessment orders were passed by the assessing authority, which in turn have been subjected to challenge by filing Exts.P5 and P7 appeals, along with Exts.P6 and P8 petitions for stay. However, after considering the interlocutory applications for stay, the 3rd respondent passed Ext.P10 order dismissing the stay petitions, holding that the petitioner/appellant did not succeed to establish a prima facie case, however, W.P.(C) No.19428/2010 2 retaining the appeal to be finally heard on 16.7.2010. The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the chance to avail the benefit of further appeal as no final orders are passed in the appeal, while recovery proceedings are being pursued for realisation of the amount stated as due under Exts.P3 and P4 as borne by Ext.P9 notice issued by the 4th respondent, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that much of the liability has already been satisfied by the petitioner as given in Ground 'D' of the Writ Petition, also highlighting the instance whereby the actual liability of the petitioner is liable to be scaled down. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the satisfaction of the amount as above was made prior to passing the assessment orders and as such, there is W.P.(C) No.19428/2010 3 nothing new in it. 5. However, considering the facts and circumstances, particularly, the cause being pursued by the appellate authority in retaining the appeal while dismissing the interlocutory application for stay holding that no prima facie case was there, what else remains to be considered in the appeal remains to be obscure. In other words, the cause now being pursued by the appellate authority has resulted in substantial injustice to the petitioner, in so far as the petitioner is virtually prevented from availing the further appellate remedy, if the final order goes against the petitioner. This Court finds considerable force in the said submission and accordingly, this Court finds that the matter could be disposed of directing the appellate authority to consider and finalise the appeals themselves in accordance with law. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent is directed to consider and pass final orders on Exts.P5 and P7 appeals, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that W.P.(C) No.19428/2010 4 the coercive proceedings, if any, pursuant to Ext.P9 shall not be proceeded against the petitioner, on condition that the petitioner satisfies 50% of the disputed liability, simultaneously offering sufficient security for the balance amount, to the satisfaction of the same authority in the meanwhile. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) ps