The petitioner challenges Ext.P12 conditional order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) in KVATA No.2556/2014. The petitioner had filed an application for stay of further proceedings pursuant to the demand made. The authority had stayed the impugned demand on condition of the appellant remitting 30% of the outstanding amount demanded and on furnishing security for the balance amount to the satisfaction of the assessing authority.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant challenges the aforesaid conditional stay on the ground that the authority has not verified the respective contentions of the parties. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Alok Spices v. Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Sales Tax & Agricultural Income- Tax, Ernakulam and Another [Vol. 71 (1988) STC 347] and Ravi Gupta v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi and Another [(2009) 22 VST 529 (SC)] for the proposition that the appellate authority is bound to consider the contentions of the petitioner while W.P.(C)No.25830 of 2014 2 passing interim directions. The proposition aforesaid is undoubted. In the case on hand, perusal of the assessment order would show that the assessment was completed by making certain additions to the turnover conceded on the basis of suppression detected by the intelligence wing. The total turnover fixed is Rs.73,58,358/- against the reported turnover of Rs.6,12,123/-. It is therefore relevant to note that it was only on the inspection of the intelligence wing that the suppression has been noticed. Though the petitioner has made several contentions in this regard I am of the view that this Court need not look into such contentions especially on account of the fact that the appellate authority has to consider the matter on merits. That apart, the assessing authority having referred to the assessment order and the contentions of the petitioner formed an opinion that stay can be granted only on deposit of 30% of the amount demanded. Taking into consideration the total amount of Rs.3,85,536/- and having regard to the fact that the petitioner's appeal is pending, I am of the view that a slight modification can be made to the order passed in Ext.P12 especially on account of the fact that the petitioner has remitted the admitted tax. The amount shown as 30% of the demand in Ext.P12 can be reduced to 20% of the outstanding amount.
W.P.(C)No.25830 of 2014 3 With the aforesaid modification to Ext.P12, this writ petition is disposed of. The amount shall be paid within a period of one month.
vpv Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE