IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17618 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SABU JOSE, M/S.MALAYAKAM GRANITES, CHAZHIYATTIRI, ERUMAPETTY, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR SRI.T.G.ABHILASH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.III, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. C.K. GOVINDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No.17618 OF 2O1O ......................................................................... Dated this the 8th June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was imposed with a penalty in respect of the assessment years 2005-06 as borne by Exts. P1 and P2 orders, which however were subjected to challenge by filing Exts. P5 and P6 appeals along with Exts.P7 and P8 petitions for stay. After considering the matter, the appellate authority passed Ext. P11 order whereby the applications for stay were dismissed, which forms the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the course pursued by the appellate authority is not correct or sustainable and that the petitioner is virtually defeated from having any further remedy since various grounds raised in the appeals are still to be considered and finalised 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits with reference to the materials on record that Ext. P11 is not liable to be termed as a 'non-speaking order' W.P.(C) No.17618 OF 2O1O 2 as the specific contention raised by the petitioner has been adverted to. It has also been referred to in Ext. P11 that the petitioner/appellant had admitted that the crusher unit was being run without registration and without maintaining any books of accounts and that it was only after the inspection by the Intelligence wing, that the petitioner chose to comply with the statutory requirements and further that the estimate done by the Intelligence Officer is on the basis of the electricity consumption, which cannot be termed as arbitrary, submits the learned Government Pleader. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the course pursued by the respondents is not correct or proper in view of wide disparity with regard to the actual units consumed in the previous year. The fact remains that the appellate authority is still to consider the appeal, without which the petitioner is virtually defeated from availing the benefit of statutory remedy . 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds it fit and proper to direct the appellate authority to W.P.(C) No.17618 OF 2O1O 3 finalise the statutory appeals as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to consider and pass final orders on Exts. P5 and P6 appeals after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is also made clear that all further coercive steps pursuant to Ext. P12 and P13 demand notices issued by the first respondent in respect of the concerned assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance on condition that the petitioner satisfies 1/3rd of the disputed liability and furnishes security for the balance amount within three weeks. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk