IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16222 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.S.ALIYAR,HILL PRODUCE DEALER, KARIMBA.P.O,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,MANNARKKAD. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.16222 of 2010-C ---------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T Whether interference of this Court, exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted with regard to the condition imposed in Ext.P5, whereby 30% of the dues in respect of the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 is ordered to be satisfied, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the appeal, forms the issue involved in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was some delay in filing the requisite 'F Forms' and the reason is that the concerned dealers failed to submit the same on time and it was after taking strenuous efforts, that the petitioner collected the same and filed before the concerned authority. The petitioner also filed an application to condone the delay in this regard. However, without any regard to the actual facts and figures, the respondents are proceeding with further steps and have issued Exts.P1 and P2 orders; which in turn have been subjected to challenge in Ext.P3 and P4 appeals. W.P(C) No.16222 of 2010-C 2 3. The case projected from the part of petitioner is that it was rightly taken note of by the appellate authority that the petitioner/appellant has explained the reasons by filing a petition to condone the delay, which was not considered by the assessing authority. In spite of this, the appellate authority imposed the condition upon the petitioner to satisfy 30% of the disputed amount and to furnish security for the balance amount, which hence is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits with reference to the averments in para 3 of the Writ Petition that the observation made by the assessing authority in Ext.P2 (opening para) that “no F Form has been filed for the balance amount” is not correct or proper; as the petitioner had procured 'F' Form No.062148 for Rs.3,15,000/- and filed before the first respondent on 14.2.2007 (it is conceded that there is a mistake with regard to the actual date, given as 13.4.2007) 5. The learned counsel also placed a photocopy of the relevant Forms as well as the endorsement given by the first respondent. Considering the actual facts and figures, it appears, the observation made by the first respondent is per se wrong and W.P(C) No.16222 of 2010-C 3 illegal, in all aspects. That apart, the fact that the petitioner had submitted necessary application for condoning the delay as provided under the relevant provisions of the law. It is conceded that the said application was not considered by the first respondent, while passing the assessment orders. This being the position, this Court finds that the condition imposed upon the petitioner by the appellate authority vide Ext.P5 is not correct or proper. 6. In the said circumstances, the second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on Exts.P3 and P4 appeals in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that till such orders are passed, all further coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance, on condition that the petitioner furnishes security for the entire amount stated as due. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE ab