IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24902 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SANTHOSH BABU, ANAPARACKAL AGENCIES, KUNNAMTHANAM, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER-II, THIRUVALLA-689 101. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS-II), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM- 691 001. 3. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MALLAPPALLY- 689 594. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 24902 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the condition imposed by the appellate authority as per Ext.P5 order granting interim stay, directing the petitioner to satisfy 50% of the disputed amount and to furnish security for availing the benefit of interim stay during pendency of the appeal. The case of the petitioner as projected in the Writ Petition is that the petitioner in respect of the assessment year 2008-09 omitted to include certain purchases worth Rs.14,73,788.49 and also the sales worth Rs.13,44,760.96 in the returns. But the mistake was noted at the time of audit by the Chartered Accountant, which in turn was clearly shown in the Form 13/13A proceedings. However, Ext.P1 notice was issued proposing to revise the assessment; in response to which, the petitioner submit Ext.P2 reply. But without any regard to the same, the assessment was finalized by Ext.P3, which has been challenged by filing Ext.P4 appeal, along with the I.A. for stay. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate authority, after considering the I.A. for granting interim stay, however, imposed a condition to satisfy 50% of the disputed amount as borne by Ext.P5 which is not correct or sustainable and hence is under 2 WP(C) No. 24902/2010 challenge. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Going by the contents of Ext.P5, it is very much clear that the case put forth by the petitioner/appellant has been specifically taken note of by the appellate authority. But absolutely no reason has been stated to sustain the condition imposed upon the petitioner to satisfy an extent of 50% for availing the benefit of interim stay, which does not appear to be correct or sustainable; more so, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Ravi Gupta’s Case reported in 22 VST 229. 5. In the above circumstances, Ext.P5 is set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the I.A. for stay and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. A 'Speaking Order' as above shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that till such orders are passed on the I.A., all further coercive proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc