K.M. Joseph, J Appellant is the Writ Petitioner. The Writ Petition was filed being aggrieved by Exts.P17 to P19 notices and Exts. P20 to P22 orders. Exts.P11 to P13 appeals were sought to be disposed of expeditiously and the recovery proceedings were sought to be interdicted. Exts. P20 to P22 were interim orders granted by he first appellate authority in appeals filed by the appellants challenging the assessment. It was found by the learned Single Judge that including interest, the total amount is nearly four Crores. By the impugned order, the appellate authority granted stay on condition that the appellant remits 30% of the demand. The substantial complaint of the appellant is that large sums are due to the appellant by way of refund and it is without considering this aspect that the appellant is called upon to pay the amount. 2. The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the Supreme Court has stayed the demand raised by the Department for the assessment year 2005-06 on the ground that there is refund of twenty four Crores, pertaining to the period from 1991 onwards, due to the appellant. The learned Single Judge took note of the contention that the said reason would apply even in the present case as the refund had not materialised. It is noted that the demand in the earlier order namely, 2006 was around thirty five Crores, which no doubt was pending in appeal. Learned Single Judge also took note of the further order of refund dated 18.3.2014 wherein, sixty five lakhs is due as refund to the appellant. In such circumstances, learned Single Judge thought it fit to direct payment of fifty lakhs to satisfy the direction of the first appellate authority. If the amount of Rupees fifty Lakhs is paid within one month from the date of judgment, the recovery proceedings were ordered to be kept in abeyance.
3. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would reiterate the contention that in view of the fact that huge amount is due to the petitioner by way of refund, the first appellate authority has clearly acted illegally in directing payment of amounts. The learned Single Judge has not considered the matter in the right perspective.
5. In view of the fact that we are in agreement with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the reasoning which was adopted in arriving at the figure, we need not say anything more about the orders which are impugned, passed by the appellate authority disposing the stay application. Consequently the appeal stands dismissed. Three weeks' time is granted from today for complying with the conditions.
Sou.
Sd/-
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.
// True copy //