The correctness and sustainability of the condition imposed by the appellate authority as per Ext.P7 order passed by the 4th respondent on 30.08.2014 directing the petitioner to satisfy 30% of the disputed liability so as to enjoy the benefit of interim stay during pendency of the appeal, is the subject matter of consideration before this Court.
2. The sequence of events reveals that, pursuant to an inspection conducted at the premises of the petitioner, some incriminating circumstances came to light; pursuant to which, notice was issued to the petitioner. An application for adjournment was preferred to enable the petitioner to produce the relevant documents. A copy of the request has been produced as per Ext.P5 dated 15.5.214 . The grievance of the petitioner is that, without giving any further opportunity to produce the 'books of accounts', the proceedings came to be finalised by passing Ext.P6 order mulcting huge liability, which in turn is under challenge before the Appellate Authority. The WP(c). No. 31096 of 2014 2 sequence of events in this regard high lighted before the Appellate Authority also omitted to be considered while passing Ext.P7 order imposing the condition and hence the challenge.
3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents on instructions submits that, the time sought for by the petitioner as per Ext.P5 was only for a period of 'two weeks' and the concerned authority waited for the entire period; despite which no reply or documents were produced by the petitioner. It was in the said circumstances, that the said authority had finalised the proceedings on the basis of the available materials on record, which is not assailable under any circumstances, and hence no interference is warranted in the writ petition, submits the learned Government Pleader.
4. After hearing both the sides this Court finds that, no tenable ground has been raised or substantiated by the petitioner to call for interference in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed. However, taking note of the persuasive submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the time to satisfy the condition as per Ext.P7 WP(c). No. 31096 of 2014 3 is already over, the petitioner is granted a further period of 'two weeks' to satisfy the condition. Subject to this the petitioner shall continue to enjoy the benefit of interim stay during pendency of the appeal.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps.
Sd/-
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
Pn