IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2010 / 29TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 26749 of 2010(P) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M/S.ASIA POWER COM PVT.LTD., NO.35 KRISHNA VIHAR, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-682 036. BY ADV. SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSMT.) SPECIAL CIRCLE-II, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 26749 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of Ext.P9 order passed by the appellate authority, whereby 50% of the disputed amount has been directed to be satisfied and to furnish security for the balance so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the appeal. 2. With regard to the sequence of events, the petitioner submits that, challenging Ext.P3 assessment order in respect of the assessment year 2006-07, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 appeal along with Ext.P6 petition for stay and it was on considering the said I.A., that Ext.P9 order was passed by the 2nd respondent, which in turn is under challenge. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the course pursued by the appellate authority is not at all correct or proper and the contentions raised in the appeal have not been properly adverted while imposing the condition. Many a ground has been raised in the Writ Petition, legal as well as factual. The learned counsel also submits that Ext.P9 is not liable to be termed as a 'speaking order' and the condition imposed is quite in a mechanical manner, which hence is sought to be intercepted by this Court. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 2 WP(C) No. 26749/2010 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish 'Bank Guarantee' for the entire amount and seeks for a direction to be issued to the appellate authority to consider and finalize the appeal. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds it fit and proper to direct the 2nd respondent to finalise the appeal itself. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and pass final orders on Ext.P4 appeal in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months. Recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext. P7 shall be kept in abeyance till such time, on condition that the petitioner furnishes 'Bank Guarantee' for the disputed liability within one week. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc