Condition imposed by the 4th respondent vide Ext.P4 order dated directing the petitioner to clear 30% of the disputed liability so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during pendency of the appeal preferred against the assessment orders in question are under challenge in this writ petition.
2. On serving Ext.P1/P1(a) assessment notices, the petitioner submitted reply, which according to the petitioner, was not properly considered and Ext.P2 assessment order was passed on 22.04.2014. This in turn is under challenge in Ext.P2 appeal preferred alongwith the I.A. for stay. After considering the I.A. for stay, Ext.P4 order was passed, which according to the petitioner, is absolutely without any regard to the actual facts and figures and hence under challenge.
3. Sri. K.Srikumar, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the main defect pointed out is that no proper value has been shown in the stock transfer. But it is pointed out that there is absolutely no dispute with regard to the actual quantity and that the figures in this regard tally with the books of accounts. Reference is made to the observation as contained in Ext.P2 in the following terms:
FOLLOWING IS QUANTITY RECONCILIATION FOR RECEIPTS, SALES & STOCK FOR THE FY 2012-2013:
4. The learned counsel also points out that on serving a further notice to the petitioner, a reconciliation statement was filed, explaining the position before the 1st respondent. But some astrological inference has been made and the proceedings have been finalised, passing by Ext.P2 assessment order, adding the turnover to an unconscionable extent and in turn, fixing the liability nearly to the tune of Rs.1.8 crores. The position was explained in the appeal filed before the appellate authority and also during the course of hearing in connection with the I.A. for stay. Though the case of the petitioner was adverted to, the effect of the same has not been discussed while passing Ext.P4 interim order. The Condition imposed by the appellate authority virtually does not have any basis, as far from the materials brought on record and hence sought to be intercepted.
5. The learned Government Pleader however submits that the discrepancy has already been conceded, as discernible from Ext.P2 itself. Reference is made to the observations contained in Ext.P2.
6. After hearing both the sides and after going through the materials on record, this Court finds that the particular aspect pointed out by the petitioner with reference to the 'quantity' is not seen discussed by the appellate authority while passing Ext.P4 order. However, this is a matter which could be considered in the appeal. For the purpose of interim stay, accommodating the petitioner to the permissible extent, this Court finds that the liability now mulcted upon to the petitioner to an extent of 30% could be scaled down to 20%, so as to meet the ends of justice.
It is ordered accordingly. With the above modification, the writ petition is disposed of.
In view of the fact that the time stipulated in Ext.P4 is already over, the petitioner is granted a further time of 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, so as to satisfy the condition, as modified above.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, alongwith a copy of the writ petition, before the 1st respondent, for further steps.
Sd/-
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE jv