IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22035 of 2009(Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M/S PARAPURATH AGENCIES, PARAPURATH HOUSE, AMBALLOOR, REPRESENTED ITS PROPRIETOR, TONY IMMANUAL. BY ADV. MR.K.J.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, VAT CIRCLE I, THIRUPUNITHURA. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. 3. INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 22035 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 4th August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is mainly aggrieved of the interim order passed by the appellate authority as borne by Ext. P6, whereby the petitioner has been directed to satisfy 30% of the due amount for availing the benefit of interim stay during pendency of the appeal. 2. The case of the petitioner is that because of the adverse circumstances, the business was closed down w.e.f. 31.03.2008, but the factum of closure could not be communicated to the first respondent till 31.07.2008 as stated in Ext.P1 dated 31.07.2008 addressed to the said respondent. The assessment was finalised without any regard to the actual facts and figures and that no liability could be mulcted on the shoulders of the petitioner since there was no business at all and W.P.(C) No. 22035 OF 2009 2 even otherwise, since the turnover was much less than Rs. 10 lakhs, no such course could have been pursued by the assessing authority, wrongly bringing the petitioner within the net work by showing a projected turnover, submits the learned Counsel. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits with specific reference to Exts. P2 and P2(a) to P2(e) series of medical certificates that the petitioner was not in a position to move about at the relevant time and as such, the adverse observation made by the departmental authorities in the impugned proceedings might not be relied on. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 5. Considering the particular facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the second respondent , who passed Ext. P6 order. Accordingly, Exts. P6 is set aside and the second respondent is directed to re- consider the I.A. preferred by the petitioner for stay, afresh, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to substantiate his case and pass a speaking order in tune with the law declared by this Court in Supreme W.P.(C) No. 22035 OF 2009 3 Electrical Engg.(P) Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer [2008 (3) KLT 805] as expeditiously as possible . It is made clear that till such appropriate orders are passed on the said I.A., all further coercive proceedings pursuant to Exts. P5 and P5(a) shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk