IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2010 / 28TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25890 of 2010(I) ------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S. TECHNOSKILL ALUMINIUM CENTRE, NEAR I.C.I.C.I. BANK, MANNARGHAT ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA. BY ADV. SRI.DALE P.KURIEN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (WC & LT), COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICE, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) (ON DEPUTATION), COMMERCIAL TAXES BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, PERUMANOOR, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.25890 of 2010-I ---------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P6 order passed by the appellate authority, whereby the petitioner has been directed to satisfy 30% of the disputed liability and to furnish security for the balance amount, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the appeal. Ext.P3 order was passed by the first respondent fixing the tax liability upon the petitioner, which in turn is under challenge in Ext.P5 appeal. After considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, the appellate authority passed Ext.P6 order in Ext.P5 (a) I.A for stay, whereby the petitioner has been directed to satisfy 30% of the liability. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P6 is not a 'speaking order' and hence is under challenge. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits, with reference to the materials on record, that the course pursued by the first respondent is not liable to be assailed under W.P(C) No.25890 of 2010-I 2 any circumstances and that the assessing officer has already observed in Ext.P3 that, notice dated 24.1.2009 was served on the assessee by registered post. The assessee, by letter dated 19.1.2009, sought for another opportunity to submit the details and the case was adjourned to 24.2.2009 as per notice dated 16.2.2009. As per letter dated 27.2.2009, the assessee sought for further adjournment of the case to 10.3.2009. The authorized representative of the assessee, who turned up on the date, also promised to produce all the relevant records on 10.3.2009; inspite of which, nobody did turn up on 10.3.2009. Accordingly, another notice was issued on 18.3.2009, informing that the case was adjourned to 26.3.2009. Since there was no response, the assessment was finalised vide Ext.P3; challenged in Ext.P5 appeal. It was after considering the matter, that the appellate authority, passed Ext.P6 order in the I.A, imposing condition to satisfy 30%. 4. The circumstances when interference can be made; if the order is not a speaking order, has been well explained by the Apex Court as per the decision rendered in Ravi Gupta V. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi & another (2009) 22 VST 529 (SC). Taking note of the observations made by the assessing authority as to the W.P(C) No.25890 of 2010-I 3 sequence of events as narrated in Ext.P3 order and the materials on record considered by the appellate authority, fixing the condition only to an extent of 30%, Ext.P6 is not liable to be termed as a 'mechanical order'. No interference is warranted and the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, taking note of the fact that the time stipulated by the appellate authority in Ext.P6 to satisfy the condition is already over, the petitioner is granted 10 day's time from the date of obtaining certified copy of the judgment. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab