Being aggrieved of ex parte assessment orders in respect of the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09, the petitioner has preferred Exts. P1,P3, P5 and P7 statutory appeals along with Exts.P2, P4, P6 and P8 petitions for stay before the first respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that, without any regard to the pendency of the above proceedings, coercive steps are being pursued. Hence the writ petition.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. It is pointed out by the learned Government pleader that there was inordinate delay in filing the appeals and that the orders impugned in Exts.P1, P3, P5 and P7 were sent by registered post and served on the petitioner on 17.06.2010, 17.06.2010, 02.04.2010 and 22.09.2009 respectively. The learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that the delay has been properly explained in the affidavit filed in support of the petitions for condonation of delay(which were filed subsequently).
3. It is to be noted that, extent of delay is not the yardstick, but the explanation offered, in view of the law declared W.P(C)No.27669 OF 2014 2 by the Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123 ]
4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the first respondent/Deputy Commissioner(Appeals) is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P9, P11, P13 and P15 petitions for condonation of delay and P2,P4, P6 and P8 petitions for stay, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, on condition that the petitioner satisfies 10% of the disputed liability within two weeks. Subject to the above, coercive proceedings, if any shall be kept in abeyance. .
The Writ Petition is disposed of. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk