IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6548 of 2010(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M/S.P.T.ANTONY & SONS, ALAPATT FASHION JEWELLERY, BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, BABU ALAPATT. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR SRI.JAIRAM.V.MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (AA), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. ` W.P.(C) No. 6548 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 12th March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved of the conditions imposed by the appellate authority as per Ext. P7 order, whereby the petitioner has been directed to satisfy 25% of the total amount due for the year 2006-07 and furnish security for the balance amount, so as to avail the benefit of the interim order of stay during the pendency of the appeal. 2. There is a specific contention for the petitioner as projected in the Writ Petition that the appeal itself was heard on 25.09.2009 and that final orders are yet to be passed; whereas by virtue of the interim order passed on 30.01.2010 unreasonable restrictions and burden have been mulcted on the shoulders of the petitioner. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no rhyme or reason in imposing the said condition; more so in view of the fact that the contention raised by the petitioner that the assessment order is not correct or W.P.(C) No. 6548 OF 2010 2 sustainable in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the Dy. Commissioner of Salestax (Law) vs. Dat Pathe [ 59 STC 374] stands rather accepted by the appellate authority as well, as evident from the discussion made in the impugned order itself . 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits, on instruction, that the averment of the petitioner that final hearing of the appeal was held on 25.09.2009 is not correct . It is also stated that the petitioner has not produced the requisite documents before the appellate authority so as to establish his case in the light of the decision cited supra. In any view, taking note of the fact that the appeal is dated 06.05.2009 and nearly one year has been elapsed , this Court finds that the appeal itself could be directed to be considered and disposed of. Taking note of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the observation made by the appellate authority with regard to the extent of 18.710 Kgms of gold valuing Rs.77,75,665/- cannot be considered as stock transfer eligible for exemption and the tax liability thereon will only be W.P.(C) No. 6548 OF 2010 3 much less than Rs. Five lakhs, this Court finds that the condition imposed by the appellate authority could be varied by directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. Five lakhs forthwith. 5. In the above circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider Ext.P2 appeal itself and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible , at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The coercive steps stated as being pursued by the third respondent as per Ext. P4 shall be kept in abeyance in the meanwhile, on condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. Five lakhs within ten days from today and furnishes security for the balance amount . The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. . P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk