Abdul Gafoor, Edavanakkattu House, Thiruvanchikulam, Kodungallur,Thrissur District and Abdul Nazar, Edavanakkattu House, Thiruvanchikulam, Kodungallur,Thrissur District vs Intelligence Officer, Squad No. 1, Department of Commercial Taxes, Pankaj Buildings, Thrissur-680001, Asst.Commissioner (Assessment), Commercial Taxes Special Circle, Thrissur-680001 and Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Department of Commercial Taxes, Palakkad-678001

Justice P.R. Ramachandra Menon

The petitioners were mulcted with Ext.P1 order imposing penalty. Though the challenge in the first round did not turn to be successful, the petitioners have succeeded in the second round before the Tribunal, when the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded as per Ext.P2 for fresh consideration. Pursuant to this, Ext.P3 order was passed by the first respondent. Meanwhile, the offence was compounded by the petitioners and there is no dispute with regard to the penalty.While so, the second respondent passed an order of assessment, as borne by Ext.P4, against which the petitioners preferred Ext.P5 appeal. But the appeal came to be rejected as per Ext.P6 order dated 10/10/2008 stating that the petitioners have not satisfied the additional court fee as prescribed under the relevant provisions of law. The petitioners have now approached this Court seeking to have interference by this Court so as to enable them to pursue the appeal, after satisfying the additional court fees. The lapse/delay is sought to be explained, referring to various adverse circumstances, including attachment of saw mill run by the petitioners by the financing Bank.

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. Considering the particular facts and circumstances, this Court does not find it fit or proper to close the door for ever and the petitioners can be permitted to satisfy the additional court fee with such other charges, if any, to have the matter considered in accordance with law. But then, it will naturally involve some delay as well, which has to be satisfactorily explained by the petitioners by filing an I.A. with supporting affidavit before the appellate authority and it will for the third respondent to consider the same in accordance with law.

In the said circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of making it clear that, if the petitioners satisfy the additional court fees and such other charges, if any, as prescribed for entertaining Ext.P5 appeal and also file an I.A. for condoning the delay offering satisfactory explanation, the same shall be considered in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, as expeditiously as possible. The requirement to be satisfied by the petitioners as above shall be effected within ''two weeks'' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.