Antony Dominic, J.
These appeals are filed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.18975/2014 and 18974 of 2014. The writ petitions were filed by them challenging Exts.P5 assessment orders and P7 conditional orders of stay passed by the appellate authority in Ext.P6 appeals filed by them. The learned Single Judge, by his impugned judgment, declined to interfere with Ext.P7 conditional orders except reducing the quantum of the amount specified to be remitted from 30% to 25%. It is aggrieved by this judgment, these appeals are filed.
2. Although the learned counsel for the appellant argued that this Court should examine the validity of Ext.P5 assessment orders which are passed for the assessment years 2010-2011 and 2011- 2012, having regard to the fact that Ext.P6 appeals filed by the appellant themselves are pending consideration of the statutory appellate authority, we do not think that at this stage, this Court would be justified in entertaining these writ petitions. Therefore, we decline to consider the challenge against Ext.P5 assessment orders and leave with the matter to be dealt with by the concerned appellate authority.
3. In so far as Ext.P7 conditional orders are concerned, having heard the learned counsel on both sides we feel that the issue raised by the appellant in Ext.P6 appeals mentioned above are required to be resolved in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and another v. Union of India and another (2006) 3 SCC 1 and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.2213/2012 dated 24.6.2013, apart from the other relevant judgments. The provisions of the agreement between the appellant and the telecom operators, may also assume importance in that context.
Therefore, essentially a legal question is involved in the case and having gone through the judgments and the various provisions of an agreement, we feel that appellant has prima facie case which requires to be considered by the Appellate Authority, in such circumstances, we do not find any justification in imposing any onerous condition for the grant of stay of recovery of the tax due pending consideration of the appeals filed by the appellant. Accordingly, we dispose of these appeals with the following directions:
• Ext.P7, the conditional stay orders passed by the second respondent appellate authority will stand set aside. The second respondent will dispose of Ext.P6 appeals within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. In the meantime, recovery of tax under Ext.P5 assessment orders will stand stayed.
• Appellant will produce a copy of this judgment before the Appellate Authority for information and compliance.
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge jes ANIL K. NARENDRAN, Judge