IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 344 of 2011(P) --------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- MUHAMMED SHERIF.V.A., COCHIN CATERING, SANTHOSH LANE, ALUVA. BY ADVS. SRI.S.ABU BAKER KUNJU SMT.M.REHUMATHUNNISA BEGUM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE CTO, ALUVA-683 101. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAX COMPLEX, THEVARA-682 013. 3. DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), ALUVA-683 101. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.344 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6 order issued by the 2nd respondent appellate authority. The petitioner had preferred statutory appeals challenging Ext.P3 and P5 assessments finalised with respect to the years 2007-'08 and 2008-'09. Along with appeals the petitioner had filed interim applications seeking stay. Through Ext.P6 order, the interim applications were disposed of granting stay, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting 1/3rd of the amount due and on furnishing sufficient security for the balance amount. 2. According to the petitioner, the condition imposed in the impugned order by the 2nd respondent is highly improper and unreasonable. It is contended that such condition was imposed by the 2nd respondent in a mechanical manner without properly adverting to the contentions and without applying mind. It is stated that, the assessments were completed only on the basis of an inspection conducted at the business place of the petitioner by the Intelligence Officer, at a time when the petitioner was continuing business without taking registration. According to the petitioner, at the time of inspection, he was not having any volume of business crossing the statutory limits and that he was W.P.(C).344/11 -2- not at an obligation to take registration. However, it is noticed that the offence detected was compounded by paying amounts in lieu of prosecution. 3. The assessing authority took steps to complete assessments by making an addition equivalent to 5 times of the alleged suppressed turnover, which was detected by an Intelligence Officer. Contention of the petitioner is that the addition made in this regard was totally unwarranted since the entire stock was verified by the Intelligence Officer and turnover was correctly ascertained. However, it is noticed that, merits of the assessments is a subject matter now pending consideration before the appellate authority. 4. On a perusal of Ext.P6 impugned order, it is noticed that the appellate authority had illustrated the main contentions raised in the appeal and also mentioned the arguments raised by the authorised representative at the time of consideration of the stay application. However, I notice that the 2nd respondent had failed to make any observations regarding merits of such contentions. Nor any reason is mentioned for insisting a condition for payment of 1/3rd of the amount. Going by the dictum laid by this court in Supreme Electrical Engg. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer (2008 (3) KLT 805) the appellate authorities are at an obligation to mention specific reason for imposing conditions for payment of part of the W.P.(C).344/11 -3- amounts due. Rather it is held that the appellate authorities should observe reasons as to why the appellants are not entitled for a complete stay with respect to the amounts in dispute. 5. However, I am not proposing to remit the matter for passing fresh orders by the appellate authority, in view of the fact that the appeal is pending disposal for quite a long time. Interest of justice will be served if the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the appeals on an early basis and on directing the petitioner to remit a lesser portion of the amount in dispute, pending disposal of the appeals. 6. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 and P5 appeals as early as possible, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. 7. Till such time the appeals are disposed of as directed above, recovery of the amounts in dispute shall be kept in abeyance, provided the petitioner remits 1/4th of the total amount due and on furnishing Security Bond with respect to the balance amount within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb