IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 33306 of 2009(G) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- P.J. A. MANOJ, PEEJAYE ENTERPRISES, KUTTOOR, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER -I, THIRUVALLA. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. --------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 33306 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT 1. Through Ext.P1 order, the assessment of Tax on the petitioner, for the year 1999-2000, was finalised imposing additions on finding that the petitioner had effected unaccounted purchase of Charcoal. The assessment was set aside in appeal filed by the petitioner, and the matter was remitted back to the assessing authority with a specific direction to give reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and also with direction to verify signature in the order forms and to confirm whether the petitioner had actually signed on it or not, for arriving at findings regarding the alleged transportation of charcoal. Against the appellate order second appeal was filed by the Revenue and further revision was filed before this Court by the assessee. Ultimately consequential revised assessment was completed as per Ext.P3, which is now challenged again in appeal. W.P.(C).NO.33306/2009 2 2. Ext.P4 is the appeal filed in this regard. Along with the appeal the petitioner had also filed a stay petition, and the order. Ext.P5 which is impugned in this writ petition was issued by the second respondent appellate authority, imposing condition of payment of 50% for granting stay. 3. Contention of the petitioner is that the revised assessment was completed totally in violation of the directions issued by the appellate authority and no proper consideration was made with respect to verification of the purchase orders. However, challenge against imposition of the condition in Ext.P5 order is on the basis that the appellate authority had failed to advert to the contentions in its proper perspective. It is also contended that the appellate authority had imposed the condition in a quiet mechanical manner. 4. On a perusal of Ext.P5, it is noticed that the appellate W.P.(C).NO.33306/2009 3 authority had gone through findings in the impugned order of assessment. The appellate authority had also considered arguments of the petitioner / appellant. It is further noticed that the assessing authority had observed that the petitioner had admitted signatures on the xerox copies of the order forms. At the same time, it is observed that the petitioner had failed in producing any evidence to substantiate that he has not purchased any goods which pertains to the xerox copies of the order forms. 5. Before issuing the interim order, the appellate authority had heard the petitioner. It was contended that having came to know about the illicit transport of charcoal, the petitioner had requested the check post authorities, not to allow transport of charcoal in his name, unless separate orders are accompanying such transport. But such transports were permitted even thereafter on the basis of production of photo copies, may be bogus documents, W.P.(C).NO.33306/2009 4 according to the petitioner. 6. However, it is noticed that in Ext.P5 order, after discussing contentions of the petitioner, the second respondent had not observed any findings regarding merits of such contentions and no reason is stated for imposing condition of payment of 50% of the tax amount. 7. The order impugned cannot be termed as an order issued in a mechanical manner with non-application of mind or that there is non-advertence to the contentions. But I am of the opinion that the order is lacking from reflection of any reasoning in arriving at imposition of a condition insisting 50% payment. Under such circumstances in order to meet the ends of justice, I am of the opinion that the appellate authority can be directed to dispose of the appeal on an early basis and till then the recovery can be kept in abeyance on the basis of imposing modified conditions. W.P.(C).NO.33306/2009 5 8. In the result, second respondent is directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P4 appeal after affording an opportunity 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. Ext.P5 order is modified to the extent of granting stay till the disposal of the appeal, on condition of the petitioner remitting an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- within a period of two weeks from today and on furnishing security for the balance amount. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE SS