The petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the condition imposed by the appellate authority as per Ext. P6, whereby the petitioner stands directed to satisfy 30 % of the disputed liability, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during pendency of appeal . Ext. P1 is the assessment order for the assessment year 2007 – '08, which has been put to challenge by way of Ext. P2 appeal preferred along with Ext. P3 petition for stay. Pursuant to Ext. P5 judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 19130 of 2014, the I.A. for stay was considered and the appellate authority passed Ext. P6 order on 29.09.2014 with the condition as above, which in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the condition imposed by the appellate authority is without considering the specific grounds raised by the petitioner in appeal and further that the same is onerous, in view of the huge extent of liability mulcted upon the petitioner as discernible from Ext. P8 judgment passed on 21.08.2014. As per the said judgment a sum of Rs. 3 Crores is to be paid by the petitioner, by way of three installments and steps are being taken to satisfy the same. It is stated that the last installment is due on 30th of this month. The petitioner has filed I.A. No. 15525 of 2014, producing copies of the pre-assessment notice, objection filed by the petitioner in response to the said notice and the annual return filed by him for the year 2007 -08 on 30.04.2008.
3. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on the last occasion, it was submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the petition now produced along with I.A. as Ext. P10 was not forming part of the record and that the same was never submitted before the assessing authority. The objection filed by the petitioner on 25.02.2014 did not contain the second paragraph of Ext. P10 (now produced along with I.A.). A copy of the objection dated 25.02.2014 actually preferred by the petitioner was also produced before this Court for perusal. In the said circumstances, this Court passed an order yesterday, in the following terms:
“The learned counsel for the petitioner submits with reference to Ext.P10 produced along with I.A. No.
15525 of 2014 that a specific ground was raised in the statement of objection filed in response to the pre- assessment notice, as given in the second paragraph, referring to the eligibility to have exemption to an extent of 50 % with reference to the relevant Rule.
The learned Government Pleader submits that, Ext. P10 could only be a fabricated document, so far as the reply dated 25.02.2014 submitted before the departmental authorities is different and it does not contain the second paragraph of Ext. P10. A copy of the said reply/statement of objection is also made available before this Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioner pleads ignorance as to the turn of events and seeks for time to get instructions.”
4. When the matter is taken up for consideration today, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, apart from submitting the objection dated 25.02.2014 (a copy of which has been produced by the learned Government Pleader); the petitioner submitted Ext. P10 as well, finding that the relevant contention was omitted to be incorporated in the objection filed before the concerned respondent on the same day. The learned Government Pleader placed relevant 'file' before this Court and this Court has gone through the same. Since the objection allegedly filed by the petitioner by way of Ext. P10 does not form part of the records, the averment of the petitioner in this regard is not liable to be entertained.
5. This Court does not propose to go into the factual details or to find out whether Ext. P10 is a 'manipulated' record or not, for the time being, but for holding that, this is not a fit case to call for interference, invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court and to intercept Ext. P6 order passed by the appellate authority. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed. Since the time stipulated in Ext.P6 order is already over, the petitioner is granted two more weeks' time to comply with the direction.
kmd Sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)