The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 order passed, wherein it has been directed that the recovery proceedings initiated in the year 2005-06 would be stayed only on condition of payment of 30% of the outstanding due. On looking at the order, the 1st Appellate Authority has found that, for verification of the contentions raised, the records have to be examined in detail and that the same would take time. However, it has also been noticed that the 1st Appellate Authority is convinced of the liability of the appellant; but again, is satisfied that the appellant has established a prima facie case for a conditional stay. There is nothing in the order which could substantiate any of these findings and they seem to be in contrast to each other. It is on such a haphazard consideration that the conditional WP(C).15181/14 2 order has been passed. Neither is detailed examination required nor could the liability as such be looked into at this stage. What is required is a prima facie look into the assessment order and the case put up by the assessee to decide upon what condition could be made, to mitigate the hardship of the assessee in satisfying the entire demand; during the pendency of the first appeal. Without that, if a conditional order is passed, that would not be a fair prima facie consideration. In such circumstances, Ext.P5 order is set aside and there shall be a stay of proceedings for recovery for a period of one month within which time, the 1st Appellate Authority shall re- consider the issue and pass orders thereon. Writ petition allowed.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge Mrcs