IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 8TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 23299 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VIBHA CHOCOLATES (P) LTD., KINFRA NELLAD (P.O), MUVATTUPUZHA, (REPRESENTED BY BINOY BHASKAR, MANAGING DIRECTOR). BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, PERUMBAVOOR. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), COMMERCIAL TAXES, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 015. 3. TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J ------------------------------- WP(C) NO. 23299 OF 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner company who is engaged in manufacture of chocolate coated nuts, is registered dealer of rolls of first respondent. According to the petitioner, due to mis- management of the person with whom the affairs of the company were entrusted, there was no proper follow up regarding finalization of the sales tax assessments. The matter was brought to notice of the Managing Director when a demand was raised for payment of an amount of Rs.29,26,947/-. It is the case of the petitioner that after collecting certified copies of the assessments, the files were entrusted to a lawyer for filing statutory appeals, who died subsequently. On enquiry it was revealed that no appeals were filed. However by entrusting another lawyer, appeals were filed along with delay condonation petitions. When coercive steps of recovery was initiated, the petitioner approached this Court in WP(C) 2 WP(C) No. 23299/2010 14444/2010. This Court directed the appellate authority to consider the delay condonation applications as well as the stay petitions and till then interim stay was granted against the recovery. On the basis of directions issued by this Court the appellate authority had considered the applications and Ext.P17 series and Ext.P18 series interim orders were issued granting conditional stay directing the petitioner to deposit 30% amount due. Meanwhile, the petitioner moved a contempt petition before this Court alleging violation of the judgment in WP(C)14444/2010, on the premise that inspite of the stay granted by this Court, the revenue recovery authorities are not lifting the attachment effected against the factory of the petitioner. The contempt application was dismissed observing that there was no specific direction issued in this regard. Subsequently I.A. 6785/2010 was filed in WP(C) 14444/2010 seeking direction against the 3rd respondent to permit the petitioner to resume the functioning of the factory. This Court directed the 3rd respondent to 3 WP(C) No. 23299/2010 invoke attachment and to permit functioning of the factory, provided the petitioner complies with the condition imposed through the interim orders passed by the appellate authority. It is further stated that the petitioner had approached appellate authority seeking extension of time for compliance of the conditions stipulated in the interim orders. The appellate authority had extended the time stipulated for compliance of the condition, till 14.07.2010. 2. In the present Writ Petition, the petitioners are challenging the interim orders issued by the appellate authority (2nd respondent herein) on the ground that the conditions imposed therein had resulted in unworkable situation. It is pointed out that since the factory premise remained locked, under attachment effected by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner was not in a position to generate any funds and to make the deposit as directed in impugned interim orders. 3. Having considered the fact that the petitioner had 4 WP(C) No. 23299/2010 approached this Court on an earlier occasion seeking direction through I.A.6785/2010 filed in WP(C) 14444/2010 and in view of Ext.P19 order issued by this Court, it is not proper for the petitioner to agitate the question regarding release of attachment by filing a fresh Writ Petition. However it is pointed out by the learned counsel that there was no challenge raised against the interim orders impugned in this Writ Petition, in the I.A. filed in WP(C) 14444/2010. It is also noticed that the petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent seeking extension of time for compliance of the conditions stipulated and an extension was granted by that authority. 4. Apart from the above said aspects, on a consideration of the impugned orders under Ext.P17 series and Ext.P18 series I am not at all inclined to interfere, since the appellate authority had applied its mind and considered all the contentions raised in the appeal. It is only after adverting to such contentions the appellate authority had arrived at a conclusion that a prima facie case has been 5 WP(C) No. 23299/2010 established for granting conditional stay. It is noticed that the petitioner was directed to make payment of only 30% of the tax amount due. Merely because the condition imposed is causing rigorous liability on the petitioner and merely because it is unworkable to the petitioner, this Court is not justified in interfering with the interim orders issued, pending disposal of the appeal. 4. However learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that all the books of account including computer system in which the accounts are maintained, is remaining within the office premises of the factory which now under attachment and in custody of the 3rd respondent. Therefore the petitioner is prevented from producing books of accounts before the appellate authority in order to substantiate the contentions raised in the appeal. Hence the petitioner seeks direction to permit to take out the books of accounts and computer system in order to produce proper accounts and statements before the appellate authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner 6 WP(C) No. 23299/2010 also seeks indulgence of this Court for directing the appellate authority to have an early disposal of the appeals. 5. Under the above circumstances, while declining interference with orders under Ext.P17 series and P18 series, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9 to P14 appeals at the earliest possible, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. The 3rd respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to take out the books of accounts and computer system from the factory premises of the petitioner, which is under attachment, if necessary after preparing inventory for such items. If the petitioner approaches the 3rd respondent for the said purpose, the same shall be released without any further delay. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE dnc