Judgment:
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.
1. The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the condition imposed in Ext.P6 interim order passed by the appellate authority, whereby the petitioner has been directed to satisfy 30% of the amount due and furnish security bond for the balance amount before the assessing authority on or before 31.5.2010, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of appeal.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the case projected by the petitioner against Ext.P1 impugned assessment order has not been properly looked into by the second respondent while passing Ext.P6 interim order. It is also contended that the instructions laid down by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes vide Ext.P2 dated 16.11.2002 were also not taken into consideration, whereby the defect noted is liable to be treated as 'technical' one or rather non significant or undue weight should not have been given to such aspects/circumstances. It is also contented that, the ground taken in the appeal will definitely and conclusively prove that, the case projected by the petitioner/appellant is on the basis of the actual facts and figures and that there is every chance for having Ext.P7 set aside.
3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that, the challenge raised against Ext.P6 does not call for any interference as the said order has been passed by the appellate authority taking note of the entire facts and circumstances. Going by Ext.P6, it is relevant to note that the case put forth by the petitioner has been discussed therein. It is also observed in the order as follows:
I have considered the various contentions raised by the learned representative. It is a fact that according to the assessing authority certain purchases were not accounted by the appellant. So also appellant is otherwise contenting that there is some mistake in the computer generated accounted list. Considering the various arguments of the appellant a prima facie case has established by the appellant which warrants an order to be issued in the stay petition. Hence the following orders issued.
4. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the case of petitioner was very much been taken note of by the appellate authority, while passing the interim order and there is proper application of mind. This being the position, no interference is warranted in this Writ Petition and it is disposed of, however directing the second respondent to finalize Ext.P3 appeal, in accordance with law, also giving due weight to the contents in Ext.P2 communication issued by the Commissioner. This shall be done after hearing both the sides, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, on satisfying the condition imposed, the coercive proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. Taking note of the fact that, the time is running out today the petitioner is permitted to satisfy the requirement within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.