Wp(C)/9271/2014 Of Baby Antony v. The Agrl. Income Tax & Commercial Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2014/10TH CHAITHRA, 1936 WP(C).No. 9271 of 2014 (H) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S):-------------------------- BABY ANTONY, PROPRIETOR, ENVEES INN BAR, ERAMALLOOR, PIN 682 584. BY ADV. SMT.S.K.DEVI RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE AGRL. INCOME TAX & COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KUTHIATHODE, PIN 682 584. DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KUTHIATHODE, PIN 682 584. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KOLLAM-691 012. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688 524. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SHOBHA ANNAMMA EAPEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 9271 of 2014 (H) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 32041877106/08-09 DATED 27-12-2012. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 15-2-2013. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER NO. STA (ALPY) 116/13 DATED 19-3- 2014. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE VPV P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C)No.9271 of 2014 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Dated this the 31[st] day of March, 2014 JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of Ext.P1 order dated27.12.2012, whereby the assessment was finalised fixing hugeliability upon the petitioner which in turn has been sought to bechallenged by filing Ext.P2 appeal along with a petition for stay.After considering the interlocutory application for stay, the appellateauthority passed Ext.P3 order, whereby the petitioner is required tosatisfy 40% of the disputed liability and to furnish security for thebalance amount so as to avail the benefit of interim stay duringpendency of the appeal, which made the petitioner to approach thisCourt by filing this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner aswell as the learned Government Pleader appearing for therespondents. 3. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice ofthis Court by the learned Government Pleader that, in response tothe pre-assessment notice issued to the petitioner, no objection was ever filed and it was in the said circumstance, that the proceedingswere finalized by the assessing authority, leading to Ext.P1 order. 4. After hearing both the sides and after going through thepleadings and proceedings, this Court finds that the conditionimposed by the appellate authority as per Ext.P3 in the saidcircumstance can never be branded as onerous or arbitrary. 5. In the said circumstance, interference is declined and thewrit petition is dismissed. However, taking note of the fact thattime granted, by the appellate authority is already over, a furtherperiod of 'two weeks' is granted to the petitioner to satisfy therequirements, upon which, the petitioner will continue to have thebenefit of interim stay during pendency of the appeal. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, alongwith a copy of the writ petition, before the concerned respondent forfurther steps. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENONJUDGE