Assessment finalised in the case of the petitioner as per Exts.P1/P1(a) orders dated 12.09.2014 in respect of the assessment years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, is under challenge by way of Exts.P2/P2(a) appeals. After considering Exts.P3/P3(a) petitions for stay, the Appellate Authority passed Ext.P4 order dated 12.11.2014, directing the petitioner satisfy 30% of the disputed liability, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during pendency of the appeals. This made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, an inadvertent mistake was occurred with regard to the 'TIN' shown in the proceedings filed by the petitioner, which was sought to be substantiated before the authority. But, it was without considering the same, that the assessment was finalised and this in turn has been projected by the petitioner in the appeals as well. The Appellate Authority also did not consider the matter W.P.(C) No.32416 of 2014 2 with proper application of mind, while imposing the condition and hence the grievance.
3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that, the petitioner has never raised a claim to have the returns revised and no such attempt was made, if it was a genuine mistake. The various instances of unaccounted purchases have been referred to by the Assessing Authority in the order and the actual position could have been established by the petitioner by producing the relevant records. The Assessing Authority has observed that, no supporting documents were produced in support of the claim and it was accordingly, that the assessment was finalised. In any view of the matter, this Court does not propose of express any opinion with regard to the merits of the case, as the issue is pending consideration in the appeals. The only question to be considered is whether the condition imposed by the Appellate Authority is correct or sustainable. The order passed by the Appellate Authority has to be read in the light of the entire proceedings, also with reference to the contents of the assessment order. After hearing both the sides and after considering the materials on record, this Court W.P.(C) No.32416 of 2014 3 does not find that the order impugned in the writ petition can be branded as arbitrary, illegal or irregular in any manner.
In the said circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. However, considering the submission made by the learned counsel, the petitioner is granted further period of 'two weeks' to satisfy the condition imposed by the appellate authority vide Ext.P4. Subject to satisfaction of the condition as above, the petitioner will continue to enjoy the benefit of interim stay, during pendency of the appeals.
Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of the writ petition, before the respondents, for further steps.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp