On receipt of the pre-assessment notice for the year 2009, according to the petitioner, they submitted Ext.P1 statement of objection dated 15.10.2009 before the first respondent/Commercial Tax Officer . However, observing that no objection was preferred with respect to Exts.P2 to P4 notices, assessment proceedings were finalised as per Exts.P5 to P7 for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11. Being aggrieved of the said orders, the petitioner had approached the second respondent/Assistant Commissioner (Appeals ) by filing Exts.P8 to P10 appeals and Exts.P11 to P13 petitions for stay. After considering the the petitions for stay, Exts.P14 to P16 interim orders were passed directing the petitioner to satisfy 30% of the disputed amount so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during the pendency of the appeals. This made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition stating that absolutely no reason is stated in Exts.P14 to P16 interim orders as to why conditional stay was granted and further that there is no proper application of mind.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader, who submits that Ext.P1 stated as filed does not form part of the records and admittedly no reply was submitted with respect to Exts.P2 to P4 notices and hence finalisatiton of the assessments, as per Exts.P5 to P7.
3. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason for finalising the assessment as above, was because of the wrong uploading of the sale details by another dealer showing TIN of the petitioner herein as against TIN of the concerned dealer, with whom the former dealer had transactions. Subsequently, on coming across the mistake, the concerned dealer, who uploaded the details approached the concerned authority/Assistant Commissioner (Assessment )Special Circle, Commercial Taxes, Palakkad and filed a petition for rectification of the error apparent on the face of the records. The matter was examined by the concerned authority who has issued a certificate dated 19.11.2014 to the petitioner in this regard. The said certificate reads as follows:
“ M/s. Auro Foods Pvt. Ltd is an assessee on the rolls of this office having TIN:32090618935. The assessee filed a request on 19.11.2014 requesting to rectify the error while uploading sale list during the year 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. The case of the assessee is that while uploading sales details, they uploaded the TIN (32090618935) and the name of M/s. PVJ Enterprises instead of M/s. Power Traders, Kizhakkanchery, Palakkad (TIN.32091473204).
The assessee undertook that they will produce all the documents to support the claim on 24.11.2014. Accordingly, time granted to the assessee to produce evidence of sale effected to M/s. Power Traders as per their undertaking.
This is issued to M/s. PVJ Enterprises at the request of the Managing Partner of the firm Sri Jaikrishnan P.N. to produce before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.”
4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that if the version as putforth by the petitioner in the writ petition and as contained in the certificate mentioned herein before comes to be true and also subject to production of the documents, there may not be any liability upon the petitioner . However, this Court does not intend to express anything with regard to the merits of the case, in view of the fact that the appeals are pending consideration before the appellate authority. This Court finds that this is a fit case where the merits of the appeals have to be considered and decided by the appellate authority, with liberty to the petitioner to produce the relevant documents.
5. Accordingly, the second respondent/Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to consider and pass final orders on Exts.P8 to P10 appeals, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Coercive proceedings pursuant to Exts.P18 to P20 shall be kept in abeyance till such time. Interim order granted by the appellate authority vide Exts.P14 to P16 will stand varied to the said extent. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent/Assistant Commissioner (Appeals ) for further steps.
The writ petition is disposed of.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk