The revised assessment orders passed by the first respondent/the Assistant Commissioner for the years 2011-12 to 2013-14 are under challenge in Exts.P7 to P9 appeals along with Exts.P10 to P12 stay petitions. In view of the recovery proceedings taken in the meanwhile, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) No.19673 of 2014, which was disposed of as per Ext.P14 judgment, whereby the appellate authority was directed to consider the interlocutory applications for stay and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, granting interim stay to a limited extent. It was after considering the interlocutory applications as above, the appellate authority passed Exts.P1 to P3 orders, directing to satisfy a huge extent of liability, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay. Hence the writ petition.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader.
3. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that, by virtue of the course adopted by the appellate authority while passing Exts.P1 to P3, something more which was never contemplated by the assessing authority has been incorporated, which cannot be proper. It is stated that the petitioner had never sought for clearing the liability by way of compounding under Section 8(a)(ii) of the KVAT Act.
4. After going through the materials on record, this Court finds that the appellate authority has not fixed the liability under Section 8(a)(ii). Considering the submissions made from the part of the petitioner with reference to the contents of the appeal and also the concerned assessment order, the appellate authority only observed that, if the compounding provision was to be applied and to have the liability reckoned accordingly, such liability could be to such extent, thus working out the figures accordingly.
5. After hearing/considering the nature of contentions raised by the petitioner and also the fact that the proceedings was an ex parte assessment, as put forth by the petitioner, as well as the present plight of the petitioner because of various adverse circumstances, this Court finds it fit and proper to scale down the liability, ordered as per Exts.P1 to P3, to 20% of the figures mentioned in Exts.P4 to P6. Subject to satisfaction of the modified liability as above, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, the petitioner shall continue to enjoy the benefit of interim stay, during the pendency of appeal. The appellate authority is directed to pass final orders in the appeals, in accordance with law, of course, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which shall be done at the earliest, at any rate withing 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the appellate authority for further steps.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk