IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2011 / 10TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17768 of 2011(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- S. KUMARA PILLAI, PROPRIETOR, SKP TIMBERS, CHALAI, THIURUVANANTHAPURAM. BY DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 3. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.17768/2011-U: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD. 30/03/2011 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 29/03/2011 BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPEAL ORDER DTD. 24/03/2010. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DTD. 25/04/2011. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DTD. 25/04/2011. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DTD. 30/05/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 17768 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Condition stipulated for payment of 40% of the amounts in dispute, in Ext.P6 interim order issued by the 2nd respondent appellate authority, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. Contention is that, the condition was imposed in a mechanical manner without proper appreciation of merits and the grounds raised in the appeal, and without considering the factual situation prevailing. 2. On a perusal of Ext.P6 it is evident that there is proper consideration of the contentions raised. I am not agreeable with the argument of the petitioner that, the interim order was passed without application of mind or without adverting to the grounds raised in the appeal. However it is noticed that the appellate authority has not enumerated any reasons for imposing condition to the extent of payment of 40%. I also take note of the fact that the appellate authority had observed that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner has got some force. Therefore, I am of the view that a direction for an early disposal of the appeal WP(C).17768/2011 2 and a modification of the condition imposed in Ext.P6 will serve the ends of justice. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent appellate authority to dispose of Ext.P4 appeal, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. Till such time the appeal is disposed of as directed above, in modification of the condition stipulated in Ext.P6, the respondents are restrained from recovering the disputed tax amount of Rs.18,02,651/-, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting 1/4th of the total amount due and on furnishing security bond for the balance amount within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, without sureties. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WP(C).17768/2011 3