The petitioner is challenging the extent of liability directed to be satisfied by the 2nd appellate authority/appellate Tribunal vide Ext.P3 order dated 13.08.2013, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay during pendency of the appeal.
2. The assessment in respect of the years 2009-10 and 2010-11 came to be finalised as per Ext.P3 order passed by the 1st respondent. On challenging the same, by filing an appeal before the concerned appellate authority, interference was declined and the appeal was dismissed as per Ext.P4 order which was only with respect of the assessment year 2010-11. Being aggrieved of the said order the petitioner moved the 2nd respondent by way of Ext.P5 appeal along with a petition for stay. It was after considering the said I.A., that Ext.P6 order came to be passed, whereby the petitioner is required to satisfy 50% of the disputed liability, so as to avail the benefit of interim stay, which in turn is under challenge.
WP(c). No.33325 of 2014 2
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings were finalised by the Departmental authorities referring to the extent of stock shown in the relevant proceedings, which according to the petitioner could not have been correct or sustainable. The learned counsel points out that the godowns of the petitioner came to be closed down because of the coercive steps taken by the concerned Financial Institution/Bank with regard to the liability to be cleared in connection with a loan transaction. Physical possession was also taken over by the Bank. Similarly, there was a Civil Suit filed by the landlord of the premises alleging arrears of rent. It is stated that, after taking steps on war footing, the liability to the landlord has already been cleared and the suit has been closed. The petitioner was not in a position to substantiate the value of the stock because the coercive steps taken by the Bank.
4. The learned Government Pleader points out that sufficient opportunity was already given to the petitioner and an inspection was arranged by the Assessing authority to have the stock verified. But the petitioner did not co-operate and in the said circumstances, the proceeding were finalised on the basis of available materials on record.
WP(c). No.33325 of 2014 3
5. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the issue is pending consideration before the Tribunal and it is open for the petitioner to substantiate the actual facts and figures by way of appropriate proceedings. Considering the nature of the contentions raised by the petitioner the extent of the condition imposed by the Tribunal, this Court finds that it is fit and proper to reduce the same from 50% to '1/3rd'. It is modified accordingly. The petitioner is given a further period of 'two weeks' to satisfy the modified condition as above. Subject to satisfaction of the said condition, the petitioner will continue to enjoy the benefit of interim stay during pendency of the appeal before the 2nd respondent.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent for further steps.
Writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
Pn