The petitioner is a registered dealer on the rolls of the first respondent as borne by Ext.P1. The assessment in respect of the year 2011-12 was finalised by the first respondent/ Commercial Tax Officer as per Ext.P4 order dated 30.06.2014. which in turn was under challenge before the second respondent /Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) by way of Ext.P6 appeal along with Ext.P7 petition for stay. After considering the I.A. for stay, Ext.P8 order came to be passed by the second respondent/Dy. Commissioner (Appeals), directing the petitioner to satisfy 30% of the disputed amount to avail the benefit of interim stay, which in turn is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that many a ground has been raised in the appeal, which however has not been properly considered while imposing the condition and that the case projected by the petitioner was never analysed by the assessing authority and as such, interference of this Court is sought for, in view of the coercive proceedings taken by the respondents. It is also pointed out that 90% of the goods W.P.(C)25501 OF 2014 2 transported by the petitioner are not taxable.
3. The learned Government Pleader points out that inspite of sufficient opportunity given to the petitioner the same was not made use of, as discernible from Ext.P4 order. Ext.P4 order also shows that on serving the communication intimating the petitioner about the proposal taken by the first respondent to reject the self assessment returns filed by the petitioner and to complete the assessment, the petitioner submitted a reply seeking for further time till 20.06.2014 so as to enable him to produce relevant documents. It is also discernible from the very same order that the request made by the petitioner was considered and time was extended till 20.06.2014, despite which the petitioner did not turn up. It was accordingly that the proceedings were finalised by passing Ext.P4 order. It was after considering the grounds set up by the petitioner, also with reference to the course and events leading to Ext.P4, that the Appellate authority found it fit and proper to grant interim stay, subject to the condition as aforesaid.
4. This Court does not find any irregularity or illegality with regard to the course adopted by the appellate authority.
W.P.(C)25501 OF 2014 3 Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed. In view of the fact that the time stipulated by the appellate authority is already over, the petitioner is granted two weeks'
time from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to avail the benefit of interim stay. All the contentions raised by the petitioner are left open to be considered by the appellate authority.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk