The 1st respondent completed the assessment for the year 2008-2009 by passing Ext.P1 order, whereby a total liability to an extent of Rs.80,25,088.82/- was fixed upon the petitioner. According to the petitioner, it was absolutely without any rhyme or reason and hence the same was subjected to challenge by filing an appeal. After considering the appeal, some intervention was made by way of Ext.P2 order dated 06.04.2011, modifying the quantum of liability. Pursuant to this, the liability has been reduced to some extent as per Ext.P5 order produced along with I.A. No.17146 of 2014. But still being aggrieved of the appellate order, the petitioner moved the Tribunal by filing Ext.P3 appeal. After considering the I.A. for stay, the Tribunal passed Ext.P4 order dated 24.07.2014, whereby interim stay has been granted subject to satisfaction of 50% of the disputed tax during pendency of the appeal. This made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.
2. Sri.Sumathi Dandapani, the learned Senior Counsel W.P.(C) No.32776 of 2014 2 appearing for the petitioner, points out that the petitioner is entitled to have exemption by virtue of the mandate under Rule 10(2) of the KVAT Rules, 2005 and as such, the burden now placed upon the shoulders of the petitioner is to an unconscionable extent. The specific ground raised in this regard was never properly adverted to by the First Appellate Authority as well as by the Tribunal, which in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.
3. The learned Government Pleader submits on the other hand that, pursuant to Ext.P2 order passed by the First Appellate Authority, the matter was considered in detail and the liability was scaled down to substantial extent. The figures in respect of the 'work in progress' as given in Ext.P1 to the tune of Rs.3,91,66,625/-, was subsequently reduced to Rs.97,75,000/- as per Ext.P5 modified order. Similar course was pursued in respect of the 'cost of consumables' as well. It is stated that this aspect has been taken note of by the Tribunal, including as to the subsequent turn of events, while passing Ext.P4 order and it was accordingly that, the petitioner has been directed to satisfy only 50% of the said amount and not the amount covered by Ext.P1.
W.P.(C) No.32776 of 2014 3 After hearing both the sides and taking note of the particular nature of contention taken by the petitioner and also the materials forming part of the records, this Court finds that the condition ordered by the Tribunal, to an extent of 50% of the disputed tax, could be reduced to 30%, which is ordered accordingly. The petitioner shall satisfy the condition by effecting 15% of the said extent within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and another 15% within 'two weeks' thereafter. Subject to this, the petitioner will continue to enjoy the benefit of interim stay, during pendency of the appeal. The 2nd respondent shall pass final orders in the appeal, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of the writ petition, before the 2nd respondent, for further steps.
The writ petition is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp