IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 6TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25724 of 2011(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER : ------------ M/S.AGE INDUSTRIES (P) LTD., AGEIND HOUSE, KOUSAPARA, MENONPARA P.O., PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY V. RAVEENDRAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 2ND CIRCLE, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. ASST. COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678 001. 3. INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD-678 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V.K. SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 25724 of 2011(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30-11-2010 EXT.P1(a) : COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20-12-2010. EXT.P2 : COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19-07-2011. EXT.P2(a) : COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19-07-2011. EXT.P3 : COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25-08-2011. EXT.P3(a) : COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25-08-2011. EXT.P4 : COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27-04-2011. EXT.P5 : COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 07-03-2011. EXT.P5(a) : COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 07-03-2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 25724 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 28th day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Exts. P3 and P3(a) interim orders passed in appeals filed by the petitioner, wherein, as a condition for grant of stay, the petitioner was directed to pay 40% of the balance tax due and to furnish adequate security for the balance. The petitioner's contention is that in exactly identical fact situation, the same appellate authority had passed Ext.P4 appellate order in favour of an assessee identically situated accepting similar contentions as that of the petitioner, remanding the matter to the assessing authority for fresh assessment. The petitioner would therefore contend that the petitioner is entitled to an absolute stay of recovery during the pendency of the appeals. This is opposed by the learned Government Pleader. But the learned Government Pleader does not dispute the fact that in exactly identical fact situation, Ext.P4 order has been passed by the same appellate authority granting reliefs to an identical appellant. In the above circumstances, there is no justification for the appellate authority in not granting absolute stay in the petitioner's appeals. Accordingly, Exts. P3 and P3(a) orders are quashed. The appellate authority who passed Exts. P3 and P3(a) orders shall consider and pass final orders in the appeals in which the impugned orders have been passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the W.P(C) No. 25724 of 2011 -: 2 :- date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till orders are passed, recovery of tax disputed in the appeals shall be kept in abeyance. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/