IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21372 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.NITCO LTD. MADHUSILA CHAMBER, NH EDAPPALLY,COCHIN -24 REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER A.K.RAVINDRAN. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SPECIAL CIRCLE-III,ERNAKULAM 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ERNAKULAM. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (TAXES) SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 21372 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 9th July , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext. P7 order whereby a condition has been imposed to satisfy 1/3rd of the disputed amount and furnish security for the balane amount to avail the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the appeal. 2.The sequence of events as described in the Writ Petition shows that being aggrieved of Ext.P1 assessment order in respect of 2004-05 passed by the first respondent, the petitioner has preferred Ext. P2 appeal along with Ext, P3 petition for stay and it was after considering the I.A. for stay, pursuant to the direction given by this Court vide Ext. P6 judgment that Ext. P7 order was passed by the second respondent imposing a condition. Many a ground has been raised in the Writ Petition challenging sustainability both on facts as well as on question of law. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the amount in dispute and appropriate directions might be given to the W.P.(C) No. 21372 OF 2010 2 appellate authority to consider and finalise the appeal so as to achieve finality to the issue. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 5. Taking note of the particular facts and circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P2 appeal, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. All coercive proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner vide Ext.P5 shall be kept in abeyance, on condition that the petitioner satisfies 1/3rd of the disputed amount and furnishes security for the balance amount as directed in Ext. P7. However, taking note of the fact that the period stipulated in Ext.P7 is already over, the said condition shall be satisfied within two weeks. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk