IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15457 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.P. SANALKUMAR, K.C. APPLICANCES, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, (AUDIT ASSESSMENT) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES , WAYANAD AT SULTHAN BATHERY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), KOZHIKODE. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE, KALPETTA. 4. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, (RECOVERY), OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER, KALPETTA. BY GOVERNMENT ORDER ADV. SHRI V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No.15457 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 5th June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext. P8 order passed by the second respondent/appellate authority imposing a condition to pay a portion of the amount assessed as liability during the pendency of Ext.P3 appeal filed against Exts.P1 and P2 impugned assessment order and erratum order respectively . It is stated that the reason stated for imposing the condition, as evident from Ext.P8, is that the petitioner/appellant therein did not produce 'conclusive evidence' for granting unconditional stay. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not provided with adequate opportunity to produce 'conclusive evidence' as intended by the appellate authority and hence seeks for one more opportunity to produce all the requisite evidence for substantiating his case . 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. W.P.(C) No.15457 OF 2009 2 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds it fit and proper to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his case before the appellate authority. In the said circumstances, Ext. P8 is set aside and the second respondent is hereby directed to consider Ext.P4 application preferred by the petitioner afresh on merits, of course, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner with liberty to adduce such evidence as the petitioner wants to adduce. Appropriate orders shall be passed on the said petition as expeditiously as possible. Till such orders are passed as above, all coercive steps stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk